From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA75B3857351 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:27:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org AA75B3857351 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 28THQh58002936; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:26:44 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 28THQhNv002935; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:26:43 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:26:43 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Iain Sandoe Cc: "Kewen.Lin" , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Rework option -mpowerpc64 handling [PR106680] Message-ID: <20220929172643.GA25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <9d9f1f43-b528-387d-45a7-1d89400de0fc@linux.ibm.com> <5B4DCBBB-3237-4A9F-ACCA-6669DE6905B8@sandoe.co.uk> <20220928213049.GU25951@gate.crashing.org> <5C0E6258-CBE2-4EFF-9D8C-DA26EECA0CAF@sandoe.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5C0E6258-CBE2-4EFF-9D8C-DA26EECA0CAF@sandoe.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:16:38AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2022, at 00:04, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > adding —with-tune=G5 to the configure line .. the cross-build then succeeded > > (at "-O1 -g" as I was building to debug) - maybe that will provide a clue, but I’m > > out of time for today. > > perhaps we also need a check that the m32 CPU has support for 64b insns? > > so perhaps —with-cpu-32= (or the moral equivalent) should be > required? In principle, yes. But -mpowerpc64 has been independently selectable in the past. Compare to -maltivec, which often is used with -mcpu=750 and stuff like that. We want to have less like this (much less), to reduce exponential special cases and exponential testing requirements to something manageable, but we also want to not break the world :-) Segher