Hi, Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603350.html BR, Kewen on 2022/10/12 16:12, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi, > > 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! > > Is it ok for trunk if darwin testing goes well? >
