Hi!
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:17:30AM -0500, will schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-10-17 at 13:08 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > It did not happen in GCC 9 obviously. Do you want to take a
> > shot? It
> > doesn't have to be all at once, it's probably best if not even -- as
> > I
> > wrote in the commit message, the flag always was used to mean
> > different
> > things.
>
> As long as it's OK to be removed, I'll certainly take a shot at it.
It is. Thanks!
> With that in mind that may simplify things for me here.
> I expect that
> anything currently guarded by DIRECT_MOVE should instead be guarded by
> POWER8.
Yes. Which works just as well for the places that actually check
whether the direct move insns can be used, and for everything else that
wants p8 :-)
> > > { "direct-move", OPTION_MASK_DIRECT_MOVE, false,
> > > true },
> > > + { "power8", OPTION_MASK_POWER8, fal
> > > se, true },
> >
> > Why would we want a #pragma power8 ?
>
> Hmm, thinko on my part, i'll reevaluate.
The existing "direct-move" is a historical thing, no something to copy
as an example of how things should be done :-)
Segher
