From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11126 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2015 13:09:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11112 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jul 2015 13:09:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:09:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F613B1FBF; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-43.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.43]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6ND9nPc002524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:09:50 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t6ND9mtK006653; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:09:48 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t6ND9kvl006652; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:09:46 +0200 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:31:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Nick Clifton , Andreas.Krebbel@de.ibm.com, gcc-patches Subject: Re: s390-linux fails to build Message-ID: <20150723130946.GB1780@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20150723125611.GA1780@tucnak.redhat.com> <20150723130329.87834B045@oc7340732750.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150723130329.87834B045@oc7340732750.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg01938.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 03:03:29PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 02:46:43PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > > > I bet that is gone break also cross-compilers from s390* to other targets. > > > > > > I think this should be fine on s390. The problem with i386 is that > > > the driver-native.c file uses data types only defined by the i386 > > > target files (e.g. enum processor_type). But on s390, the file does > > > not any target-specific types and should be fully portable. > > > > That hunk means that driver-native.o is added to EXTRA_GCC_OBJS > > even say for s390x-*-* -> x86_64-*-* compiler. While it might compile > > there, nothing will use it, so what is it good for? > > i?86/x86_64 backend will certainly not reference s390_host_detect_local_cpu > > anywhere. > > Oh, I agree this will not be *used*. I just wanted to point out that it > will not *break* cross-compilers as is. I think it would be better for consistency and sanity do what other targets do, even if it won't break the cross-compilation. Do you agree? Jakub