* [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option
2024-01-15 13:25 [Bug other/113399] New: -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-15 13:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-15 14:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-15 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|-ffold-mem-offsets should |[14 Regression]
|not be a target option |-ffold-mem-offsets should
| |not be a target option
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option
2024-01-15 13:25 [Bug other/113399] New: -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-15 13:37 ` [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-15 14:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-15 14:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-15 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2024-01-15
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
confirmed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option
2024-01-15 13:25 [Bug other/113399] New: -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-15 13:37 ` [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-15 14:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-15 14:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-15 14:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-15 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Bet it should be Optimization instead of Target.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option
2024-01-15 13:25 [Bug other/113399] New: -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-15 14:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-15 14:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-17 14:57 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-15 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And Common
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option
2024-01-15 13:25 [Bug other/113399] New: -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-15 14:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-17 14:57 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-17 16:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: law at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-17 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Just something that was missed when this option was changed from target
dependent to target independent. It definitely should not be a target option.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option
2024-01-15 13:25 [Bug other/113399] New: -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-17 14:57 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-17 16:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-18 7:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-18 7:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-17 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ok, I'll bootstrap/regtest:
2024-01-17 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR other/113399
* common.opt (ffold-mem-offset): Remove Target and Bool keywords, add
Common and Optimization.
--- gcc/common.opt.jj 2024-01-03 11:51:31.467732078 +0100
+++ gcc/common.opt 2024-01-17 17:22:05.975424001 +0100
@@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@ Common Var(flag_cprop_registers) Optimiz
Perform a register copy-propagation optimization pass.
ffold-mem-offsets
-Target Bool Var(flag_fold_mem_offsets) Init(1)
+Common Var(flag_fold_mem_offsets) Init(1) Optimization
Fold instructions calculating memory offsets to the memory access instruction
if possible.
fcrossjumping
The removal of Bool is for consistency, there are no other common.opt nor
*/*.opt options using it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option
2024-01-15 13:25 [Bug other/113399] New: -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-17 16:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-18 7:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-18 7:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-18 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1203fc2e6a40c65896763554f62cacfb4bd6a836
commit r14-8208-g1203fc2e6a40c65896763554f62cacfb4bd6a836
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Thu Jan 18 08:45:09 2024 +0100
opts: Fix up -ffold-mem-offsets option keywords
While the option was originally meant to be a Target option for a single
target, it is an option for all targets, so should be Common rather than
Target, and because it is an optimization option which could be different
in between different LTO TUs, I've added Optimization keyword too.
From what I can see, Bool is a non-documented non-existing keyword (at
least, grep Bool *.awk shows nothing, so I've dropped that too. Seems
that the option parsing simply parses and ignores any non-existing
keywords.
Guess we should drop the Bool keywords from the gcc/config/riscv/riscv.opt
file eventually, so that people don't copy this around.
2024-01-18 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR other/113399
* common.opt (ffold-mem-offsets): Remove Target and Bool keywords,
add
Common and Optimization.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/113399] [14 Regression] -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option
2024-01-15 13:25 [Bug other/113399] New: -ffold-mem-offsets should not be a target option gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-18 7:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-18 7:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-18 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread