On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 17:44 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 6/25/2021 8:40 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > > > On Fri, 2021-06-25 at 01:02 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 10:48 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > I'd like to know a bit more here. mips.exp shouldn't care > > > > > about the > > > > > options passed to the compiler and to the best of my knowledge > > > > > patch itself is wrong, I question if it's necessary and > > > > > whether or > > > > > not > > > > > your just papering over some other issue. > > > > There is some logic processing options in mips.exp. Some > > > > options are > > > > overrided for multilib. It seems the mips.exp was originally > > > > designed > > > > as: > > > > > > > > * MIPS options should go in dg-options > > > > * Other options should go in dg-additional-options > > > > > > > > In d2148424165 marxin merged some dg-additional-options into dg- > > > > options, > > > > exploited the problem. > > > > > > > > And, the "origin" convention seems already broken: there is > > > > something > > > > like -funroll-loops which is not a MIPS option, but accepted by > > > > mips.exp > > > > in dg-options. > > > > > > > > Possiblities are: > > > > > > > > (1) this patch > > > > (2) make mips.exp accept -fno-inline as "if it is a MIPS option" > > > > (3) refactor mips.exp to pass everything itself doesn't know > > > > directly > > > > to gcc > > > Attached a diff for mips.exp trying to make it pass everything in > > > dg- > > > options which is not known by itself directly to the compiler. > > > > > > The "smallest fix" is simply adding -fno-inline into mips.exp. > > > However > > > I don't like it because I agree with you that mips.exp shouldn't > > > care > > > about dg-options, at least don't do it too much. > > As I said in the other message, I think the smallest fix is the way > > to > > go though. > THanks for chiming in Richard. I didn't know all the background > here. > Let's just go with the small fix based on your recommendation. We can > always revisit if we keep running into issues in this code.
Pushed at 3b33b113.
