On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Richard Sandiford <rsand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Richard Sandiford >>> <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >>>>>>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:22 AM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >> This causes GCC bootstrap to fail on Darwin systems (whose system >>>>>>> > compiler is clang-based). Since PR 61146 was resolved as INVALID >>>>>>> > (but I’m not sure it’s the right call, see below), I’ve filed a >>>>>>> > separate report for the bootstrap issue >>>>>>> > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315). >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Since my PR has been closed twice by Andrew Pinski (“it’s clang’s >>>>>>> > fault, bouh ouh”), I’d ask the maintainers to step in. Can we >>>>>>> > please provide a GCC that works for the default darwin setup? Or at >>>>>>> > least drop darwin as secondary target and document the failure? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The best coarse of action, post a patch, have it reviewed and put in. >>>>>>> Current action, a patch has been posted, the review is outstanding, I’d >>>>>>> like to see it put in; though, I am curious why the casts were there in >>>>>>> the first place. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note, haven't added them there, but from what I can test, the casts there >>>>>> can serve as a compile time check that the right type is used, e.g. >>>>>> unsigned long i; >>>>>> >>>>>> void >>>>>> foo (void) >>>>>> { >>>>>> asm volatile ("# %0 %1" : "=r" ((unsigned long long) i) : "0" >>>>>> ((unsigned long long) 0)); >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Ah, interesting. A not-so-hineous extension then. >>>> >>>> In that case, how about just protecting the include with: >>>> >>>> #if GCC_VERSION >= 4300 && (W_TYPE_SIZE == 32 || defined >>>> (__SIZEOF_INT128__)) >>>> >>>> rather than: >>>> >>>> #if GCC_VERSION >= 3000 && (W_TYPE_SIZE == 32 || defined >>>> (__SIZEOF_INT128__)) >>>> >>>> so that clang will fail the version check? At the end of the day we >>>> only really care what happens during stage 2 and 3. Cross-compilers >>>> built with recentish gccs will still benefit. >>> >>> Works for me (thus, pre-approved with a comment explaining the version >>> choice). >> >> Btw, testing coverage would ask for && defined (__OPTIMIZE__), too, disabling >> that path in stage1 unconditionally even for new GCC. > > Ah, but surely the day is near when we use -O or -Og for stage1? > I've been using -O for a good few years now and it definitely makes > things faster (and without affecting debugging too much -- in the > rare cases where it does affect debugging, a recompile with -g > is very quick). > > ATM we get the testing coverage for i686 and ppc32 hosts. So TBH I'd > prefer to keep it simple and just bump the version number.
Works for me (though see Jakubs idea on the other thread, so please wait until we settled on a solution). Richard. > Thanks, > Richard >
