Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-25 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 04/20/2016 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01080.html >>>

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-25 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/20/2016 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01080.html >>> >>> >>> This is wrong, see my other comment on the libgomp patch. >>>

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-25 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 04/20/2016 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01080.html This is wrong, see my other comment on the libgomp patch. See my reply to your reply on the libgomp patch. Since Jakub has said it is wrong

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:45:44AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >> > >> That is why I submitted my patches. Since -m32 passes -march=x86-64 > >> to cc1 on x86-64, we shouldn't pass -march=i486 to cc1. It is undesirable > >> especially when --wit

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-20 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:45:44AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >> >> >> That is why I submitted my patches. Since -m32 passes -march=x86-64 >> >> to cc1 on x86-64, we shouldn't pass -mar

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-20 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >> That is why I submitted my patches. Since -m32 passes -march=x86-64 >> to cc1 on x86-64, we shouldn't pass -march=i486 to cc1. It is undesirable >> especially when --with-arch= is used. I noticed the issue when 32-bit >> libatomic/libg

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-20 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > Gcc uses the same -march=

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: Gcc uses the same -march= for both -m32 and -m64 on x86-64 unless --with-ar

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> Gcc uses the same -march= for both -m32 and -m64 on x86-64 unless >>> --with-arch-32= is used. There is no need for -march=i486 to compile

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Gcc uses the same -march= for both -m32 and -m64 on x86-64 unless >> --with-arch-32= is used. There is no need for -march=i486 to compile >> 32-bit libatomic on x86-64. >> >> Tested on x86-64

Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:07 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > Gcc uses the same -march= for both -m32 and -m64 on x86-64 unless > --with-arch-32= is used. There is no need for -march=i486 to compile > 32-bit libatomic on x86-64. > > Tested on x86-64. OK for trunk? > > H.J. > --- > PR target/70454 >

[PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
Gcc uses the same -march= for both -m32 and -m64 on x86-64 unless --with-arch-32= is used. There is no need for -march=i486 to compile 32-bit libatomic on x86-64. Tested on x86-64. OK for trunk? H.J. --- PR target/70454 * configure.tgt (XCFLAGS): Don't add -march=i486 to compile