From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 96563 invoked by alias); 29 May 2019 21:33:51 -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 96550 invoked by uid 89); 29 May 2019 21:33:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=huh, HX-Languages-Length:827, Huh, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 May 2019 21:33:49 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x4TLXlKu032154; Wed, 29 May 2019 16:33:47 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id x4TLXlVN032153; Wed, 29 May 2019 16:33:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 22:00:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Bill Schmidt Cc: GCC Patches , Michael Meissner Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Add undocumented switch -mprefixed-addr Message-ID: <20190529213346.GX31586@gate.crashing.org> References: <78d1bd8d-bdaf-bb90-4e71-b8e3b9746cdf@linux.ibm.com> <20190529131629.GP31586@gate.crashing.org> <098b3e26-96ea-401e-823c-300c1935287a@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <098b3e26-96ea-401e-823c-300c1935287a@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg01970.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:26:27PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> @@ -36379,6 +36391,7 @@ static struct rs6000_opt_mask const rs6000_opt_masks[] = > >> { "power9-vector", OPTION_MASK_P9_VECTOR, false, true }, > >> { "powerpc-gfxopt", OPTION_MASK_PPC_GFXOPT, false, true }, > >> { "powerpc-gpopt", OPTION_MASK_PPC_GPOPT, false, true }, > >> + { "prefixed-addr", OPTION_MASK_PREFIXED_ADDR, false, true }, > > Do we want this? Why? > > Performance folks are using it for testing purposes.  Eventually this > will probably drop out, but for now I think it's best to have the > undocumented switch. Command-line options, sure, but is that what this code is about? Huh. I thought it was for attribute target and that stuff. Oh well, okay either way. For now :-) Segher