From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ADBB389247E for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:48:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 9ADBB389247E Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 157Hj0tB056690 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:48:17 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 391r4gg2br-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:48:17 -0400 Received: from m0098393.ppops.net (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 157HjmD4063022 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:48:17 -0400 Received: from ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (7a.29.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.53.41.122]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 391r4gg2be-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:48:17 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 157HlWNo026570; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:48:16 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3900w95a3n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 17:48:16 +0000 Received: from b03ledav001.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav001.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.232]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 157HmFsU32244158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:48:15 GMT Received: from b03ledav001.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3AC6E052; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:48:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav001.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CBD6E04E; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:48:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Bills-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [9.211.74.187]) by b03ledav001.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:48:14 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: wschmidt@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/57] Support scanning of build-time GC roots in gengtype To: Richard Biener Cc: Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches References: <26d623c5117d22fbaea2ce1a445ba2d32df437ad.1619537141.git.wschmidt@linux.ibm.com> <20210520222454.GW10366@gate.crashing.org> <9a9dcf68-cdef-507a-a124-a9229e5c7c0b@linux.ibm.com> <2d0a308c-5e5b-d3a4-3d66-b16245d9c9a4@linux.ibm.com> From: Bill Schmidt Message-ID: <22d5bd15-0e1c-0c2c-ccfc-157f3d97277f@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:48:14 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: LMfs3kQHRZzFzqTMT7AbcA9HsCEaYUIM X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: KG36wffVVpvcGYiw6ghYE6-Fo9zdJrg1 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-06-07_14:2021-06-04, 2021-06-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2106070122 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 17:48:20 -0000 On 6/7/21 12:45 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 5:38 PM Bill Schmidt wrote: >> On 6/7/21 8:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Some maybe obvious issue - what about DOS-style path hosts? >>> You seem to build ../ strings to point to parent dirs... I'm not sure >>> what we do elsewhere - I suppose we arrange for appropriate >>> -I command line arguments? >>> >> Well, actually it's just using "./" to identify the build directory, >> though I see what you mean about potential Linux bias. There is >> precedent for this syntax identifying the build directory in config.gcc >> for target macro files: >> >> # tm_file A list of target macro files, if different from >> # "$cpu_type/$cpu_type.h". Usually it's constructed >> # per target in a way like this: >> # tm_file="${tm_file} dbxelf.h elfos.h >> ${cpu_type.h}/elf.h" >> # Note that the preferred order is: >> # - specific target header >> "${cpu_type}/${cpu_type.h}" >> # - generic headers like dbxelf.h elfos.h, etc. >> # - specializing target headers like >> ${cpu_type.h}/elf.h >> # This helps to keep OS specific stuff out of the CPU >> # defining header ${cpu_type}/${cpu_type.h}. >> # >> # It is possible to include automatically-generated >> # build-directory files by prefixing them with "./". >> # All other files should relative to $srcdir/config. >> >> ...so I thought I would try to be consistent with this change. In patch >> 0025 I use this as follows: >> >> --- a/gcc/config.gcc >> +++ b/gcc/config.gcc >> @@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ powerpc*-*-*) >> extra_options="${extra_options} g.opt fused-madd.opt >> rs6000/rs6000-tables.opt" >> target_gtfiles="$target_gtfiles >> \$(srcdir)/config/rs6000/rs6000-logue.c >> \$(srcdir)/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c" >> target_gtfiles="$target_gtfiles >> \$(srcdir)/config/rs6000/rs6000-pcrel-opt.c" >> + target_gtfiles="$target_gtfiles ./rs6000-builtins.h" >> ;; >> pru-*-*) >> cpu_type=pru >> >> I'm open to trying to do something different if you think that's >> appropriate. > Well, I'm not sure whether/how to resolve this. You could try > building a cross to powerpc-linux from a x86_64-mingw host ... > maybe there's one on the CF? Or some of your fellow RedHat > people have access to mingw or the like envs to try whether it > just works with your change ... > > Otherwise it looks OK. I'll see what I can find.  Thanks again for reviewing the patch! Bill > > Richard. > >> Thanks for your help with this! >> >> Bill >>