On 4/8/24 9:37 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote: > on 2024/4/8 21:21, Peter Bergner wrote: > I prefer to remove it completely, that is: > >> -mdirect-move >> -Target Undocumented Mask(DIRECT_MOVE) Var(rs6000_isa_flags) WarnRemoved > > The reason why you still kept it is to keep a historical record here?
I believe we've never completely removed an option before. I think the thought was, if some software package explicitly used the option, then they shouldn't see an 'unrecognized command-line option' error, but rather either a warning that the option was removed or just silently ignore it. Ie, we don't want to make a package that used to build with an old compiler now break its build because the option doesn't exist anymore. > Segher pointed out to me that this kind of option complete removal should be > stage 1 stuff, so let's defer to make it in a separated patch next release > (including some other options like mfpgpr you showed below etc.). :) If we're going to completely remove it, then for sure, it's a stage1 thing. I'd like to hear Segher's thoughts on whether we should completely remove it or just silently ignore it. > For the original patch, > >> +mno-direct-move >> +Target Undocumented WarnRemoved > > s/WarnRemoved/Ignore/ to match some other existing practice, there is no > warning now if specifying -mno-direct-move and it would be good to keep > the same behavior for users. If we want to silently ignore -mdirect-move and -mno-direct-move, then we just need to do: mdirect-move -Target Undocumented Mask(DIRECT_MOVE) Var(rs6000_isa_flags) WarnRemoved +Target Undocumented Ignore There's no need to mention -mno-direct-move at all then. It was only in the case I thought we wanted to warn against it's use that I added -mno-direct-move. >> That said, it's not what we've done with >> other options, but maybe those just need to be changed too? > > Yes, I think they need to be changed too (next release). If that's the consensus with Segher, sure, we can plan on that in stage1. Peter
