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 E54E53858D32 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:53:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E54E53858D32 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 29IGqUDT027202; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:52:31 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 29IGqT1j027201; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:52:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:52:29 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: will schmidt Cc: GCC patches , David Edelsohn , "Kewen.Lin" , Michael Meissner Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Split TARGET_POWER8 from TARGET_DIRECT_MOVE [PR101865] (2/2) Message-ID: <20221018165229.GK25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <2656f0182df289ade33411ac579d2d5a229f5e4c.camel@vnet.ibm.com> <20221017180840.GJ25951@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:17:30AM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2022-10-17 at 13:08 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > It did not happen in GCC 9 obviously. Do you want to take a > > shot? It > > doesn't have to be all at once, it's probably best if not even -- as > > I > > wrote in the commit message, the flag always was used to mean > > different > > things. > > As long as it's OK to be removed, I'll certainly take a shot at it. It is. Thanks! > With that in mind that may simplify things for me here. > I expect that > anything currently guarded by DIRECT_MOVE should instead be guarded by > POWER8. Yes. Which works just as well for the places that actually check whether the direct move insns can be used, and for everything else that wants p8 :-) > > > { "direct-move", OPTION_MASK_DIRECT_MOVE, false, > > > true }, > > > + { "power8", OPTION_MASK_POWER8, fal > > > se, true }, > > > > Why would we want a #pragma power8 ? > > Hmm, thinko on my part, i'll reevaluate. The existing "direct-move" is a historical thing, no something to copy as an example of how things should be done :-) Segher