Hi
> On 7 Dec 2022, at 07:54, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 07.12.22 08:10, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> Hi!
>> On 2022-12-07T07:04:10+0100, Sebastian Huber
>> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>> On 06.12.22 22:06, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>> I suppose I just fail to see some detail here, but:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-11-21T08:25:25+0100, Sebastian
>>>> Huber<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * gcc.cc (SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC): Define if not defined.
>>>>> (cc1_spec): Append SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2: Append SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC directly to cc1_spec and not through
>>>>> CC1_SPEC.
>>>>> This avoids having to modify all the CC1_SPEC definitions in the
>>>>> targets.
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/gcc.cc | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/gcc.cc b/gcc/gcc.cc
>>>>> index 830ab88701f..4e1574a4df1 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/gcc.cc
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/gcc.cc
>>>>> @@ -706,6 +706,13 @@ proper position among the other output files. */
>>>>> #define CPP_SPEC ""
>>>>> #endif
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* Subtargets can define SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC to provide extra args to cc1
>>>>> and
>>>>> + cc1plus or extra switch-translations. The SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC is
>>>>> appended
>>>>> + to CC1_SPEC. */
>>>>> +#ifndef SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>>> +#define SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC ""
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> /* config.h can define CC1_SPEC to provide extra args to cc1 and cc1plus
>>>>> or extra switch-translations. */
>>>>> #ifndef CC1_SPEC
>>>>> @@ -1174,7 +1181,7 @@ proper position among the other output files. */
>>>>> static const char *asm_debug = ASM_DEBUG_SPEC;
>>>>> static const char *asm_debug_option = ASM_DEBUG_OPTION_SPEC;
>>>>> static const char *cpp_spec = CPP_SPEC;
>>>>> -static const char *cc1_spec = CC1_SPEC;
>>>>> +static const char *cc1_spec = CC1_SPEC SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC;
>>>>> static const char *cc1plus_spec = CC1PLUS_SPEC;
>>>>> static const char *link_gcc_c_sequence_spec = LINK_GCC_C_SEQUENCE_SPEC;
>>>>> static const char *link_ssp_spec = LINK_SSP_SPEC;
>>>>
>>>> ... doesn't this (at least potentially?) badly interact with any existing
>>>> 'SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC' definitions -- which pe rabove get appended to
>>>> 'cc1_spec'?
>>>>
>>>> gcc/config/loongarch/gnu-user.h- and provides this hook instead. */
>>>> gcc/config/loongarch/gnu-user.h:#undef SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> gcc/config/loongarch/gnu-user.h:#define SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> GNU_USER_TARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> gcc/config/loongarch/gnu-user.h-
>>>> --
>>>> gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h-#define EXTRA_SPECS \
>>>> gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h: {"subtarget_cc1_spec",
>>>> SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC}, \
>>>> gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch.h- {"subtarget_cpp_spec",
>>>> SUBTARGET_CPP_SPEC}, \
>>>> --
>>>> gcc/config/mips/gnu-user.h- and provides this hook instead. */
>>>> gcc/config/mips/gnu-user.h:#undef SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> gcc/config/mips/gnu-user.h:#define SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> GNU_USER_TARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> gcc/config/mips/gnu-user.h-
>>>> --
>>>> gcc/config/mips/linux-common.h-
>>>> gcc/config/mips/linux-common.h:#undef SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> gcc/config/mips/linux-common.h:#define SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> \
>>>> gcc/config/mips/linux-common.h- LINUX_OR_ANDROID_CC
>>>> (GNU_USER_TARGET_CC1_SPEC, \
>>>> --
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h-
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h:/* SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC is passed to the
>>>> compiler proper. It may be
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h- overridden by subtargets. */
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h:#ifndef SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h:#define SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC ""
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h-#endif
>>>> --
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h-#define EXTRA_SPECS
>>>> \
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h: { "subtarget_cc1_spec", SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> }, \
>>>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h- { "subtarget_cpp_spec", SUBTARGET_CPP_SPEC
>>>> }, \
>>>> --
>>>> gcc/config/mips/r3900.h-/* By default (if not mips-something-else)
>>>> produce code for the r3900 */
>>>> gcc/config/mips/r3900.h:#undef SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC
>>>> gcc/config/mips/r3900.h:#define SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC "\
>>>> gcc/config/mips/r3900.h-%{mhard-float:%e-mhard-float not supported} \
>>>
>>> Oh, I came up with the name SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC after a discussion on the
>>> mailing list
>> I've put Iain in CC.
>>> and I have to admit that I didn't check that it was
>>> actually already in use.
>> Always one of the first things I do. ;-)
>>> What about renaming the loongarch/mips define
>>> to LOONGARCH_CC1_SPEC and MIPS_CC1_SPEC?
>> Also in use are a number of other 'SUBTARGET_[...]_SPEC' and
>> corresponding 'subtarget_[...]_spec' in 'EXTRA_SPECS', for example:
>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h-#define EXTRA_SPECS
>> \
>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h: { "subtarget_cc1_spec", SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC },
>> \
>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h: { "subtarget_cpp_spec", SUBTARGET_CPP_SPEC },
>> \
>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h: { "subtarget_asm_debugging_spec",
>> SUBTARGET_ASM_DEBUGGING_SPEC }, \
>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h: { "subtarget_asm_spec", SUBTARGET_ASM_SPEC },
>> \
>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h- { "asm_abi_default_spec", "-"
>> MULTILIB_ABI_DEFAULT }, \
>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h- { "endian_spec", ENDIAN_SPEC },
>> \
>> gcc/config/mips/mips.h: SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS
>> Do we need/want to keep the association of same-name
>> upper-case/lower-case variants; in your proposal you'd then get
>> '{ "subtarget_cc1_spec", MIPS_CC1_SPEC }', for example? (I didn't
>> quickly grok all 'EXTRA_SPECS' usage.)
>> Alternatively, what about renaming your 'SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC' to
>> 'CC1_SPEC_EXTRA' -- if that makes sense?
>> static const char *cc1_spec = CC1_SPEC CC1_SPEC_EXTRA;
>
> I was told that an operating system is the subtarget in this context. So from
> the name SUBTARGET_CC1_SPEC is is clear who is in charge. This is not clear
> from CC1_SPEC_EXTRA.
Perhaps I was not precise enough (or misunderstood the full requirement).
Having reloaded some state on this thread…
* The initial point was that target specs were an alternate mechanism for
doing what was required
which I understood to be that there was "an OS-specific common spec that
needed to be added to multiple ports".
* There are existing cases (at least Darwin is one) where this is done -
multiple ports (e.g. x86, rs6000) refer to common specs in the gcc/config/
- so, for example, the specs in gcc/config/i386/darwin.h pull in common
specs from gcc/config/darwin.h
* there are also cases where this is specifically done in port code
(sometimes with “SUBSUBTARGET_xxxx”)
===
I made the comment that, IMO this is initially confusing when the OS might
be considered the target and the ISA the sub-target - however the status quo in
specs naming is the opposite way round.
( I do not wish add further confusion here - but attempting to clarify - these
styles of provision might not be suitable for the specific case, I guess -
anyway, at this point, I’ve got nothing more to add :) )
Iain
>
>> But doesn't somehow this whole thing feel a bit like "chating the
>> system"? ;-)
>> Can't you actually achieve your thing (TLS model) via (new) 'EXTRA_SPECS'
>> in 'gcc/config/rtems.h', for example?
>
> The EXTRA_SPECS definition seems to be target-specific. Not all targets let
> an operating system define SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS. The SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS
> would need to get propagated to the corresponding specs, which seems to be
> also target-specific, for example for mips we have:
>
> #undef CC1_SPEC
> #define CC1_SPEC "\
> %{G*} %{EB:-meb} %{EL:-mel} %{EB:%{EL:%emay not use both -EB and -EL}} \
> %(subtarget_cc1_spec)"
>
> I think going this route would lead to a lot of changes affecting all targets.
>
> --
> embedded brains GmbH
> Herr Sebastian HUBER
> Dornierstr. 4
> 82178 Puchheim
> Germany
> email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
> phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
> fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
>
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
> Registernummer: HRB 157899
> Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
> Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
> https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
