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 B1E583895FC6; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:38:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B1E583895FC6
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1718923110;
	bh=LVgQQzQSbTN7soD15PDUmovGf3bay/YbtBVExo/ik80=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=CSn9J9KIuHV80iRCeEhVw9lGM+VWBRde/q+NxpO7qu/d2t8edBdqCrt/jeMiNeISM
	 vDN+YlngDx9EUL7JcL4pREPGfk3p9q2s44kqtP6KpEFtXM1ANsuGhkAeVX4YKHfyKq
	 tNILcjn1/+ruNbyBQBgS4D9T/etwC5PArj8/KlAU=
From: "broly at mac dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/115408] regression between gcc 13.3.0 and 14.1.0 using
 -mips16 and -minterlink-mips16
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:38:30 +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: 14.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: link-failure
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: broly at mac dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-115408-4-xmvV6YslW1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-115408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-115408-4@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=3D115408

--- Comment #11 from gagan sidhu (broly) <broly at mac dot com> ---
dear lad(ettes),

i just want to take this opportunity to contrast this scenario, had the
equivalent occurred on the inferior, unjustifiably hyped, ARM architecture's
"thumb" mode, which is arguably a clone of MIPS16.

if such an unthinkable and catastrophic (/s) event occurred, my bet the team
would have pushed a 14.1.1 to resolve it. this is, of course, in spite of A=
RM's
inferiority.

but i get it, it's like when you have fans you always gotta satisfy the cas=
uals
who don't even know what they're doing (why else would they use an ARM?).

at the same time it upsets me because ARM still doesn't have SMT, and i love
deferring to the embedded legend ralf baechle who never thought ARM would e=
ven
get a shot at going multicore because really, SMT can be conflated with SMP
(i'm not trying to start a rabble rabble here, so forgive me if this statem=
ent
evokes a passionate disagreement): https://tldp.org/HOWTO/SMP-HOWTO-3.html

and ralf is no fool.=20

i will say, and this is of course no fault of the great gcc team, i do get
amused by the "multilib" ARM toolchain that seemingly grows with each
iteration, always (of course) incompatible with the previous one (if we use=
 the
MIPS standard, of course. flipping a bit+resetting isn't the kind of thing i
call compatibility)

just weird how the better processors are being forgotten. i guess that's the
"industry" though and i'm comparatively young to the real maintainers in the
GNU sphere.

thanks for tolerating me, i appreciate it.=