On 6/25/19 1:57 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:32:11PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote: >>>> +hppa*-*-netbsd*) >>>> + target_cpu_default="MASK_PA_11|MASK_NO_SPACE_REGS" >>> Any reason to not use the PA 2.0 ISA? I'm virtually certain we >>> supported the 32bit ABI running on PA 2.0 hardware in hpbsd (which is >>> where the netbsd PA code is ultimately derived from). I'd be really >>> surprised if there's any PA1.1 hardware running anywhere, though there's >>> certainly some PA2.0 hardware out in the wild. >> You might also consider adding MASK_CALLER_COPIES as libgomp is broken for >> callee >> copies. This is an ABI choice so ideally you should do it now or not at all. > > > Hi Jeff, Dave, > > I've spoken to the authority of NetBSD/hppa (that's Nick Hudson), and he > said he'd rather keep the ABI as it is for the purpose of upstreaming. > He might switch ABIs eventually, but would rather do it with the local > copy of GCC first. > (And he has several PA1.1 machines :)) WRT PA1.1 vs PA2.0, as long as it's an informed decision (sounds like it is), I'm not going to object.
WRT MASK_CALLER_COPIES, I concur with John, it's a now or never choice. Flipping it after the fact has far more impacts than libgomp -- essentially it changes who is responsible for copying structures that are passed by invisible reference -- which happens in far more places than libgomp. Jeff
