Hi Iain,
on 2022/10/13 18:09, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
>> On 12 Oct 2022, at 09:57, Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 12 Oct 2022, at 09:12, Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PR106680 shows that -m32 -mpowerpc64 is different from
>>> -mpowerpc64 -m32, this is determined by the way how we
>>> handle option powerpc64 in rs6000_handle_option.
>>>
>>> Segher pointed out this difference should be taken as
>>> a bug and we should ensure that option powerpc64 is
>>> independent of -m32/-m64. So this patch removes the
>>> handlings in rs6000_handle_option and add some necessary
>>> supports in rs6000_option_override_internal instead.
>>>
>>> With this patch, if users specify -m{no-,}powerpc64, the
>>> specified value is honoured, otherwise, for 64bit it
>>> always enables OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64; while for 32bit
>>> and TARGET_POWERPC64 and OS_MISSING_POWERPC64, it disables
>>> OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64.
>>>
>>> btw, following Segher's suggestion, I did some tries to warn
>>> when OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 is set for OS_MISSING_POWERPC64.
>>> If warn for the case that powerpc64 is specified explicitly,
>>> there are some TCs using -m32 -mpowerpc64 on ppc64-linux,
>>> they need some updates, meanwhile the artificial run
>>> with "--target_board=unix'{-m32/-mpowerpc64}'" will have
>>> noisy warnings on ppc64-linux. If warn for the case that
>>> it's specified implicitly, they can just be initialized by
>>> TARGET_DEFAULT (like -m32 on ppc64-linux) or set from the
>>> given cpu mask, we have to special case them and not to warn.
>>> As Segher's latest comment, I decide not to warn them and
>>> keep it consistent with before.
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and regress-tested on:
>>> - powerpc64-linux-gnu P7 and P8 {-m64,-m32}
>>> - powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9 and P10
>>> - powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0 {-maix64,-maix32}
>>>
>>> Hi Iain, could you help to test this new patch on darwin
>>> again? Thanks in advance!
>>
>> I kicked off a bootstrap - and 'check-gcc-c' .. if all goes well, there will
>> be an
>> answer in ≈ 7hours. If something fails, the answer will be sooner ;)
>
> bootstrapped and tested on powerpc-darwin9, with default CPU configuration.
> I have not yet tried tuning or cpu configure options.
>
> testresults compare “nominal" against a recent set (another day elapsed time
> would be needed for a proper regtest).
Sounds good! Many thanks again for your help!
BR,
Kewen
