On 11/07/2016 08:15 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 09:12:29AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> The PPC port is stumbling over the new integer in boolean context
warnings.
>
> In particular this code from rs6000_option_override_internal is
> problematical:
>
> HOST_WIDE_INT flags = ((TARGET_DEFAULT) ? TARGET_DEFAULT
> :
> processor_target_table[cpu_index].target_enable);
>
> The compiler is flagging the (TARGET_DEFAULT) condition. That's
> supposed to to be a boolean.
>
> After all the macro expansions are done it ultimately looks something
> like this:
>
> long flags = (((1L << 7)) ? (1L << 7)
> : processor_target_table[cpu_index].target_enable);
>
> Note the (1L << 7) used as the condition for the ternary. That's what
> has the int-in-boolean-context warning tripping. It's a false positive
> IMHO.
Hmm...
From the warning's perspective it would look far less suspicious,
if we make this an unsigned shift op.
I looked at options.h and I think we could also use one bit more
if the shift was unsigned.
Furthermore there are macros TARGET_..._P which do not put
brackets around the macro parameter.
So how about this?
Cross-compiler for powerpc-eabi builds without warning.
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Is it OK for trunk?
Bernd.
patch-options.diff
2016-11-07 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>
* opth-gen.awk: Use unsigned shifts for bit masks. Allow all bits
to be used. Add brackets around macro argument.
Looks good. I went ahead and committed as I want to start another
config-list.mk run today and I'd like to see all the ppc targets pass
this time :-0
jeff
