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 087723858D37; Fri,  3 Mar 2023 19:31:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 087723858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677871920;
	bh=6Ka/PL5uRRD7lKiRNMEp+LU3sSn3OnREWSfXzpQ5zT0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=cwXsw4EBHnHIJ41WHJBvoP6TpINGDWQMUolK84jX/IHp7KiNZetykicYOqYlGBP2P
	 S64tQxlaOGHxU5I1Jb3Fhu41oqbc268Mslr30/EyUWU1WI+8xoaOFTHsNQsF2j23bG
	 M0sLxm21pXqcNxCBMvOuzLvlQPb4yJhOaxFQpOjc=
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108315] -mcpu=power10 changes ABI
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 19:31:59 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108315-4-JdWbAsr0Ha@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108315-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108315-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108315

--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #14)
> Are you guys really sure you want to blame the user here,

I apologise if this hasn't been a nice experience for you.

I'm not blaming anyone, least of all the user.  That is not what bugzilla is
for anyway.  The goal here is to work together on improving the compiler.

I marked the bug as RESOLVED INVALID because a) there is nothing left to be
done to resolve this PR, and b) that is because there never was anything to
be done (in GCC!) in the first place.

If this is not correct, please add some info clarifying that, and reopen the
PR?

> considering that
> all linkers, including the BFD linker, initially misinterpreted the ABI t=
he
> same way?

It wasn't implemented correctly there either, yes.  That does not necessari=
ly
mean the ABI was misinterpreted, but sure, that could be.  In either case
that has nothing to do with GCC.=