On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> No, this is a flag, not a variable. Let's figure out how to extend >>> target flags to more than 63 flags first. >> >> Extending target flags to more than 63 bits requires replacing >> HOST_WIDE_INT with a bit vector. Since target flags is used in >> TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT, change it to a bit vector is a >> non-trivial change. On the other hand, -mgeneral-regs-only is a >> command-line option which doesn't require support for >> TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT, similar to other -m options like >> -mmitigate-rop. Using flag_general_regs_only is an option. > > I have been informed that Intel people are looking into how to extend > target flags to accommodate additional ISA flags. There is no point to > hurry with an unoptimal solution. Perhaps you can coordinate your > patch with their efforts?
iISA flags use x86_isa_flags, not target_flags. -mgeneral-regs-only shouldn't use x86_isa_flags. It was my oversight to use target_flags with -mgeneral-regs-only to begin with. I don't think using flag_general_regs_only is not an optimal solution, which I should have used in the first place. The x86 change for interrupt handler depends on -mgeneral-regs-only. -- H.J.
