Hi Kewen, thanks for looking at this! (I suspect it would also affect a 32b linux host with a 64b multilib)
quite likely powerpc-darwin is the only 32b ppc host in regular testing.
> On 29 Sep 2022, at 06:45, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
>
> on 2022/9/29 03:09, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> Hi Kewen
>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2022, at 17:18, Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> (reduced CC list, if folks want to be re-included .. please add them back).
>>>
>>>> On 28 Sep 2022, at 07:37, Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 28 Sep 2022, at 06:30, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches
>>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>> ------
>>>
>>> /src-local/gcc-master/libgomp/oacc-init.c:876:1: internal compiler error:
>>> ‘global_options’ are modified in local context
>>> 876 | {
>>> | ^
>>> 0xe940d7 cl_optimization_compare(gcc_options*, gcc_options*)
>>> /scratch/10-5-leo/gcc-master/gcc/options-save.cc:14082
>>
>> This repeats on a cross from x86_64-darwin to powerpc-darwin .. (makes debug
>> a bit quicker)
>>
>> this is the failing case - which does not (immediately) seem directly
>> connected .. does it ring
>> any bells for you?
>>
>> 16649 if (ptr1->x_rs6000_sched_restricted_insns_priority !=
>> ptr2->x_rs6000_sched_restricted_insns_priority)
>> -> 16650 internal_error ("%<global_options%> are modified in local
>> context”);
>>
>
> I found this flag is mainly related to tune setting and spotted that we have
> some code
> for tune setting when no explicit cpu is given.
>
> ...
>
> else
> {
> size_t i;
> enum processor_type tune_proc
> = (TARGET_POWERPC64 ? PROCESSOR_DEFAULT64 : PROCESSOR_DEFAULT);
>
> tune_index = -1;
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (processor_target_table); i++)
> if (processor_target_table[i].processor == tune_proc)
> {
> tune_index = i;
> break;
> }
> }
>
> It checks TARGET_POWERPC64 directly here, my proposed patch will adjust
> TARGET_POWERPC64
> after this hunk, so it seems to be problematic for some case.
>
> I'm testing the attached diff which can be applied on top of the previous
> proposed patch
> on ppc64 and ppc64le, could you help to test it can fix the issue?
It does work on a cross from x86_64-darwin => powerpc-darwin, I can also do
compile-only
tests there with a dummy board and the new tests pass with one minor tweak as
described
below.
full regstrap on the G5 will take a day or so .. but I’ll do the C target tests
first to get a heads up.
====
OK. So one small wrinkle,
Darwin already has
if (TARGET_64BIT && ! TARGET_POWERPC64)
{
rs6000_isa_flags |= OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64;
warning (0, "%qs requires PowerPC64 architecture, enabling", "-m64");
}
in darwin_rs6000_override_options()
Which means that we do not report an error, but a warning, and then we force
64b on (taking
the user’s intention to be specified by the explicit ‘-m64’).
If there’s a strong feeling that this should really be an error, then I could
make that change and
see what fallout results.
the patch below amends the test expectations to include Darwin with the warning
it currently
reports.
cheers
Iain
darwin-tests.diff
Description: Binary data
