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 6FA203865488; Fri,  5 Mar 2021 10:50:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6FA203865488
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/99312] __ARM_ARCH is not implemented correctly when
 compiled with -march=armv8.1-a
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 10:50:18 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-99312-4-BKifOHIDiR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99312-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99312-4@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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 10:50:18 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99312

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
> We intend to deprecate that macro going forward as it's not a useful way =
for
> testing architecture features in aarch64. It made sense in the pre-Armv7-a
> days, but now the recommended way to test for features is the __ARM_FEATU=
RE*
> macros.

Which is interesting because x86 is going in the opposite direction and hav=
ing
ISA "levels".

>=20
> The scheme is also not very well-suited for things like the recent AArch64
> Armv8-R.
>=20
> Is there a particular use case that you have in mind?

A customer was asking for how to detect the ISA Level at compile time and
runtime.=