Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-13 Thread Richard Henderson
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:31:36PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00738.html Ok. r~

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread H. J. Lu
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:25:45PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:09:55PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > BTW, I noticed that there are 2 bits > > > > NO_PUSH_ARGS > > SVR3_SHLIB > > > > defined in i386 backend. But they aren't checked at all. Can we remove > > them? > >

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread Richard Henderson
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:09:55PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > BTW, I noticed that there are 2 bits > > NO_PUSH_ARGS > SVR3_SHLIB > > defined in i386 backend. But they aren't checked at all. Can we remove > them? I don't see why SVR3_SHLIB can't be removed. Probably from some port that got depreca

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread H. J. Lu
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:48:43PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:35:10PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > i386.c has many > > > > static const struct builtin_description bdesc_comi[] = > > { > > { MASK_SSE, CODE_FOR_sse_comi, > > Yes, and you could move all of the

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread Richard Henderson
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:35:10PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > i386.c has many > > static const struct builtin_description bdesc_comi[] = > { > { MASK_SSE, CODE_FOR_sse_comi, Yes, and you could move all of the ones specifically related to the ISA to it's own variable. r~

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:03:34PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > > > Are there any documents/examples for a second variable for flag bits? > > > > config/linux.opt uses Mask and InverseMask with Var. > > i386.

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread H. J. Lu
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:03:34PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > Are there any documents/examples for a second variable for flag bits? > > config/linux.opt uses Mask and InverseMask with Var. i386.c has many static const struct builtin_description bd

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread Steven Bosscher
On 4/12/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am working SSE4.1/4.2 support. I need to add -msse4.1, -msse4.2 and -msse4. But i386 is running out target mask bits. I got ./options.h:368:2: error: #error too many target masks Does anyone have suggestions to resolve this? Why not use structur

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, H. J. Lu wrote: > Are there any documents/examples for a second variable for flag bits? config/linux.opt uses Mask and InverseMask with Var. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread H. J. Lu
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:58:29PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > > You can specify Var together with Mask in .opt files; that allows you to > > > create a second variable for flag bits as a smaller patch for now. > > > > > > > How will it work with >

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, H. J. Lu wrote: > > You can specify Var together with Mask in .opt files; that allows you to > > create a second variable for flag bits as a smaller patch for now. > > > > How will it work with > >/* Turn on SSSE3 builtins for -msse4.1. */ > if (TARGET_SSE4_1) >

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread H. J. Lu
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:40:31PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Does anyone have suggestions to resolve this? Why not use structure > > of bitfields instead of int for target_flags? > > Years ago I added an option to support multi-way options using the >

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread H. J. Lu
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:41:06PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > I am working SSE4.1/4.2 support. I need to add -msse4.1, -msse4.2 > > and -msse4. But i386 is running out target mask bits. I got > > > > ./options.h:368:2: error: #error too many target

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, H. J. Lu wrote: > I am working SSE4.1/4.2 support. I need to add -msse4.1, -msse4.2 > and -msse4. But i386 is running out target mask bits. I got > > ./options.h:368:2: error: #error too many target masks > > Does anyone have suggestions to resolve this? Why not use structu

Re: RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread DJ Delorie
"H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does anyone have suggestions to resolve this? Why not use structure > of bitfields instead of int for target_flags? Years ago I added an option to support multi-way options using the switch table and default values. I'm not sure how that translated into t

RFA: i386 is running out target mask bits

2007-04-12 Thread H. J. Lu
I am working SSE4.1/4.2 support. I need to add -msse4.1, -msse4.2 and -msse4. But i386 is running out target mask bits. I got ./options.h:368:2: error: #error too many target masks Does anyone have suggestions to resolve this? Why not use structure of bitfields instead of int for target_flags?