From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 7BD54385843F; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 20:48:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7BD54385843F
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/101324] powerpc64le: hashst appears before mflr at -O1
 or higher
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 20:48:40 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101324-4-Qef7nIHyUW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101324-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101324-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 20:48:40 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101324

--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #6)
> Heh, another example of __attribute__((optimize("..."))) problem:
>=20
> __attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("-fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns")))
> __memmove_ppc ( void *dest, const void *src, size_t len)
> {
> ...
> }
>=20
> -mrop-protect is dropped when optimize attribute is parsed, for more
> information see:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577113.html

So what is the status with this?  IIUC, looking at the thread, it seems like
you and richi agreed that the optimize flags should be treated as if they w=
ere
appended to the command line, but that doesn't seem how trunk works right n=
ow.=20
So does GCC still need fixing or is the test case using the attribute optim=
ize
incorrectly or ???=