Hello, Eric, On Jun 21, 2022, Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596654.html > (cc-ing the build machinery maintainers listed in MAINTAINERS this time) Thanks > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 3:51 PM Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote: >> So, in investigating PR target/34422, I discovered that the gcc >> subdirectory's configure script had an instance of AC_ARG_ENABLE with >> 3rd and 4th its arguments reversed: the one where it warns that the >> --enable-fixed-point flag is being ignored is the one where that flag >> hasn't even been passed in the first place. I'm not sure it was reversed or meant to enable the feature by default (if not given), but neither theory holds much water to me. Alas, the proposed change needs a little more work. Specifically, I don't think we should warn that the feature is not available if it was explicitly --disable'd. Moreover, if it was intended for fixed-point to be enabled by default, then the help string should probably mention the --disable flag instead, otherwise, the per-target setting to yes should probably be dropped. I dislike the duplication of the targets in two case statements. I think the best way to deal with this would be to only set enable_fixed_point=default in ACTION-IF-NOT-GIVEN, leaving ACTION-IF-GIVEN empty, and afterwards, if "x$enable_fixed_point" != "xno", check for target support, bumping default to yes on supported targets, and decaying it to no if unsupported, with a warning only if it was yes. >> with an appropriate ChangeLog? It's good practice to post the proposed ChangeLog entry along with the patch, so that it can also be reviewed. Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
