On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 08:15:37PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > on 2022/9/30 01:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> +#ifdef OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 > >> + else if (OS_MISSING_POWERPC64) > >> + /* It's unexpected to have OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 on for OSes which > >> + miss powerpc64 support, so disable it. */ > >> + rs6000_isa_flags &= ~OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64; > >> +#endif > > > > All silent stuff is always bad. > > OK, with more testings for replacing warning instead of silently disablement > I noticed that some disablement is needed, one typical case is -m32 > compilation > on ppc64, we have OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 on from TARGET_DEFAULT which is used > for initialization (It makes sense to have it on in TARGET_DEFAULT because > of it's 64 bit cpu). And -m32 compilation matches OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 > (!TARGET_64BIT), so it's the case that we have an implicit > OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 > on and OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 holds, but it's unexpected not to disable it but > warn it.
Right. If If mpowerpc64 is enabled while OS_MISSING_POWERPC64, warn for that; and if mpowerpc64 was only implicit, disable it as well (and say we did!) Segher
