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 004983857354 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:38:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 004983857354 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 28TIbx3o005895; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:37:59 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 28TIbwFh005894; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:37:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:37:58 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Iain Sandoe Cc: "Kewen.Lin" , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Rework option -mpowerpc64 handling [PR106680] Message-ID: <20220929183758.GB25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <9d9f1f43-b528-387d-45a7-1d89400de0fc@linux.ibm.com> <5B4DCBBB-3237-4A9F-ACCA-6669DE6905B8@sandoe.co.uk> <92415AC8-4A5A-4119-BFCC-D7C66472F961@sandoe.co.uk> <5e64fed0-7e79-3d60-da62-5c2bf3e2c707@linux.ibm.com> <75315B0E-9812-4726-A7FA-57762A2E47B7@sandoe.co.uk> <20220929170437.GX25951@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: 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: Hi! On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:25:44PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2022, at 18:04, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:16:33AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote: > >> Which means that we do not report an error, but a warning, and then we force 64b on (taking > >> the user’s intention to be specified by the explicit ‘-m64’). > > > > And that is wrong. Any silent overriding of what the user says is bad. > > It is not silent - it warns and then carries on, Yes, but I meant the status quo. We agree :-) > > Not overriding it (and then later ICEing) is bad as well, so it should > > be an error here. And in generic code anyway. > > As noted, if that change is made we will see what the fallout is :) Hopefully it magically makes everything fine ;-) Segher