Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011, Michael Eager wrote:
David Edelsohn wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com>
wrote:
Two options, -mcmodel= and -mfpu=, had cases that fell through to the
next case without comments to indicate if this was intended. I added
comments to make the semantics explicit. Given the documentation, it
may well be intentional for -mcmodel= but is more doubtful for -mfpu=.
I doubt that either of the fall through cases was intended.
Alan, is mcmodel suppose to set m64?
Michael, is mfpu suppose to set mrecip?
No. There was a break statement at the end of case OPT_mfpu which
disappeared when OPT_mrecip was added.
Thanks. I'll apply this patch which removes the fall through, and adds
explicit Var and Init to the mfpu= entry in rs6000.opt to avoid problems
(when building as C++, as shown by a regression tester) with
0-initialization of the field that gets automatically generated by the
.opt machinery for any Target option not using Var.
Looks good.
--
Michael Eager ea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
