-fPIC -fPIE

2012-11-13 Thread Ian Lance Taylor 
Currently -fPIC -fPIE seems to be the same as -fPIE.  Unfortunately,
-fPIE -fPIC also seems to be the same as -fPIE.  It seems to me that,
as is usual with conflicting options, we should use the one that
appears last on the command line.

Do we have an existing mechanism in options processing for one option
to turn off another, where the options are not exact inverses?  I
looked for one but I didn't see one.  There is support for that for
options with the Mask property, but I don't see it for non-target
options.

Ian

Re: -fPIC -fPIE

2012-11-13 Thread H.J. Lu 
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor  wrote:
> Currently -fPIC -fPIE seems to be the same as -fPIE.  Unfortunately,
> -fPIE -fPIC also seems to be the same as -fPIE.  It seems to me that,
> as is usual with conflicting options, we should use the one that
> appears last on the command line.
>
> Do we have an existing mechanism in options processing for one option
> to turn off another, where the options are not exact inverses?  I
> looked for one but I didn't see one.  There is support for that for
> options with the Mask property, but I don't see it for non-target
> options.
>

Can you handle it similar to gcoff/gstabs/gdwarf-?


-- 
H.J.

Re: -fPIC -fPIE

2012-11-13 Thread Ian Lance Taylor 
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:00 AM, H.J. Lu  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor  wrote:
>> Currently -fPIC -fPIE seems to be the same as -fPIE.  Unfortunately,
>> -fPIE -fPIC also seems to be the same as -fPIE.  It seems to me that,
>> as is usual with conflicting options, we should use the one that
>> appears last on the command line.
>>
>> Do we have an existing mechanism in options processing for one option
>> to turn off another, where the options are not exact inverses?  I
>> looked for one but I didn't see one.  There is support for that for
>> options with the Mask property, but I don't see it for non-target
>> options.
>>
>
> Can you handle it similar to gcoff/gstabs/gdwarf-?

Ah, yes, looks good.  Thanks.

Ian

[wwwdocs] Release note entry for Function Multiversioning

2012-11-13 Thread Sriraman Tallam 
Hi,

  I have added a release note for Function Multiversioning which is
checked into trunk. Please review.

Thanks,
-Sri.
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.56
diff -u -u -p -r1.56 changes.html
--- changes.html12 Nov 2012 15:19:33 -  1.56
+++ changes.html14 Nov 2012 01:15:15 -
@@ -297,6 +297,34 @@ B b(42); // OK
 }
 
 
+ Function Multiversioning Support with G++:
+It is now possible to create multiple function versions each targeting a
+specific processor and/or ISA.  Function versions have the same signature
+but different target attributes.  For example, here is a program with
+function versions:
+
+int foo(void)
+{
+  return 1;
+}
+
+__attribute__ ((target ("sse4.2")))
+int foo(void)
+{
+  return 2;
+}
+
+int main (void)
+{
+  int (*p) = &foo;
+  assert ((*p)() == foo());
+  return 0;
+}
+
+Please refer to this
+http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FunctionMultiVersioning";>wiki for more
+information.
+
   
 
 FRV

FYI

2012-11-13 Thread UNITED NATIONS 
Contact Bank Zachodni WBK Poland for your UN Compensation draft worth 
$550,000.00