On 10/31/2018 10:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2018, Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote:
>
>> * config/i386/mingw32.h (LINK_SPEC_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE): Define,
>> based on MINGW_DEFAULT_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE.
>> (LINK_SPEC): Insert it.
>> * config/i386/mingw-264.h: Likewise.
> ^ s/2/w/, fixing...
>
> Now, it occurred to me that it is possible for biarch64.h to be
> included, thus enabling 64-bit mode even by default, without including
> mingw-w64.h. I had assumed in my patch that this was not supposed to
> happen, but configuring with --target=x86_64-mingw32 shows it does
> happen, and such a toolchain may (after my patch) pass
> --large-address-aware to the linker, even when linking -m64 binaries.
>
> Is that target configuration really supposed to be different from
> x86_64-w64-mingw32 (or however else the w64 configuration is supposed to
> be spelled), or should x86_64-mingw32 also use mingw-w64.h so that
> they're equivalent?
>
> It seems to me that we need a further patch like this:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/mingw32.h b/gcc/config/i386/mingw32.h
> index c9d8a7a31f30..848eb8430b30 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/mingw32.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/mingw32.h
> @@ -114,11 +114,17 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
> #define SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS
> \
> { "shared_libgcc_undefs", SHARED_LIBGCC_UNDEFS_SPEC }
>
> -#if MINGW_DEFAULT_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE
> +#if ! MINGW_DEFAULT_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE
> +# define LINK_SPEC_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE ""
> +#elif ! TARGET_BI_ARCH
> # define LINK_SPEC_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE \
> "%{!shared:%{!mdll:--large-address-aware}}"
> +#elif TARGET_64BIT_DEFAULT
> +# define LINK_SPEC_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE \
> + "%{!shared:%{!mdll:%{m32:--large-address-aware}}}"
> #else
> -# define LINK_SPEC_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE ""
> +# define LINK_SPEC_LARGE_ADDR_AWARE \
> + "%{!shared:%{!mdll:%{!m64:--large-address-aware}}}"
> #endif
>
> #define LINK_SPEC "%{mwindows:--subsystem windows} \
>
> But then, even this wouldn't necessarily do the right thing if e.g.
> biarchx32.h is in effect. Is that even possible?
>
> Or can we just leave mingw32.h as is, considering that (AFAIK) -m64 *is*
> --large-address-aware, it just has that enabled by default?
> Looks like it causes an error on 64bit: /usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/ld: unrecognized option '--large-address-aware' So it'll need to be excluded for x86_64.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
