On 4/16/25 12:27 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Since that sort of broad change will presumably not make gcc-15 (it > wouldn't fix a regression, not even the problem addressed by the > upthread patch),
Yes, the patch to change powerpc64 -> powerpc64_hw is definitely a gcc-16 patch. > ...may I understand your initial response in this thread > as approval of that patch? That wasn't clear either. > > (Sorry if that comes across as asking something obvious; I've noticed > misalignments between my expectations of obviousness and those of other > ppc maintainers before, so I've learned to be extra cautious) It's never a bad thing asking for clarity! That said, I am not an official maintainer of the GCC rs6000 port. That said, I believe this would fall under the "obvious" rule, since this is a "dg-do run" test case and the "has_arch_ppc64" test we're using is clearly a compile time only test and the "powerpc64" is the correct hw test to check for 64-bit instruction support on the test system. If it were me, I'd give Segher and the others a couple of days to disagree and not hearing any objections, I'd push it under the "obvious" rule. Peter
