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 986C63858CD1 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:38:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 986C63858CD1 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 986C63858CD1 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712641088; cv=none; b=PAOyu776+x9gc2JGs2OcAzCMFkcdtOP7i/ZLV3ekpIuhU/D+pyfQM3u/EVwGVaZomQqQfVcP4pI+GJZLd4Vsz9p+u80XaHTC6XBnnRvOKkEzpqD5/D0Zw9YQWXGjxVAMiNhAQFw0ubVT1OwLOli1V64KmQYTRyBj4jKlkIpOr/8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712641088; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/lyClV15jg1BF5ETQxoOia8asAvGyqqOPsVeFog+uE0=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=JlfwMrd25RsdMKa4nbYMqDRs9qsrEIa63wgvSVrR+/53dHYx2pyeM3ywF5y0tQpBcEG/V+C9OjJIb/qf8a225C8B9Q9nerjX9kpaLjXMu7pfXKyJcy5cAtsVLAvhOgtVLs+izK42/0zkThZDd8rIyK4rdHPU/O0WaLfq1c7srJk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0353727.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 4395RG0x002590; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:38:05 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=99VRnH+2iBtCJYQFhjKfoiXv3biCbX7TorokZIqWEXw=; b=H43q7GTiFPSrzy/7J65QGptWK6FwvXtqhPayK42B1l/bPdrHAWytkwcG4IRny9+c/Q5C mhPZWpFQ7jVR1U4/SKkgxV4TJPn4kpnfBfK18IqGu/WaIeh84dt+5edrbE4phXwkDkvV YrpXLkKZlppW0XwKKbyjqJqKf5UVfrc4nYDMVNRRVdMme2G4BnMg/YDelMGJpYWeekhK GRj2B52m6/yS1tgElXPPSttketQNGxz8uMn7OV7beLg/ASH1F1bebh0wVJLDXHKA7vFz gRK3z0A5yo3Hr66zBjDKapuCcZF78MKnr6IoGKlmCfnQJrGyLvkRQ9yb0Ss3x6Q0ONgR 5w== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xcyhp00c7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Apr 2024 05:38:05 +0000 Received: from m0353727.ppops.net (m0353727.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 4395c4hm018032; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:38:04 GMT Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xcyhp00c5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Apr 2024 05:38:04 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 43927YT9029966; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:38:03 GMT Received: from smtprelay07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.229]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xbj7m480p-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Apr 2024 05:38:03 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.103]) by smtprelay07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 4395bxKr40632714 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:38:01 GMT Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B6A20043; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:37:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9344E20040; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:37:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.200.61.88] (unknown [9.200.61.88]) by smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:37:57 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <2aa7da8a-432c-5b2e-42e3-25a21361f96e@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 13:37:55 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Replace OPTION_MASK_DIRECT_MOVE with OPTION_MASK_P8_VECTOR [PR101865] Content-Language: en-US To: Peter Bergner Cc: Segher Boessenkool , David Edelsohn , GCC Patches References: <20234c37-d03b-a163-9e60-d63b965a55e0@linux.ibm.com> <854a2232-adfa-4c5d-884a-fcb0a98b3051@linux.ibm.com> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: <854a2232-adfa-4c5d-884a-fcb0a98b3051@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: XqwhetLo7Ox_7QjKCuJxgDv74kb5mgeZ X-Proofpoint-GUID: NcMh9gjT1V6_jKIputYS4f5uypIHdwZR X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-04-09_02,2024-04-05_02,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=971 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2404010000 definitions=main-2404090033 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham 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 2024/4/9 11:20, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 4/8/24 9:37 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> on 2024/4/8 21:21, Peter Bergner wrote: >> I prefer to remove it completely, that is: >> >>> -mdirect-move >>> -Target Undocumented Mask(DIRECT_MOVE) Var(rs6000_isa_flags) WarnRemoved >> >> The reason why you still kept it is to keep a historical record here? > > I believe we've never completely removed an option before. I think the By checking the history, we did remove some options for SPE, paired single, xilinx-fpu etc., which can be taken as gone with feature removal, but also -maltivec={le,be} and -misel={yes,no}. > thought was, if some software package explicitly used the option, then > they shouldn't see an 'unrecognized command-line option' error, but > rather either a warning that the option was removed or just silently > ignore it. Ie, we don't want to make a package that used to build with > an old compiler now break its build because the option doesn't exist > anymore. I understand, but an argument is that no errors (even no warnings) can imply some option still takes effect and cause some misunderstanding easily. For the release in which we remove the support of an option, we can still mark it as WarnRemoved, but after a release or so, users should be aware of this change and modify their build scripts if need, it's better to emit errors for them to avoid the false appearance that it's still supported. > >> Segher pointed out to me that this kind of option complete removal should be >> stage 1 stuff, so let's defer to make it in a separated patch next release >> (including some other options like mfpgpr you showed below etc.). :) > > If we're going to completely remove it, then for sure, it's a stage1 thing. > I'd like to hear Segher's thoughts on whether we should completely remove > it or just silently ignore it. > > > >> For the original patch, >> >>> +mno-direct-move >>> +Target Undocumented WarnRemoved >> >> s/WarnRemoved/Ignore/ to match some other existing practice, there is no >> warning now if specifying -mno-direct-move and it would be good to keep >> the same behavior for users. > > If we want to silently ignore -mdirect-move and -mno-direct-move, then we > just need to do: > > mdirect-move > -Target Undocumented Mask(DIRECT_MOVE) Var(rs6000_isa_flags) WarnRemoved > +Target Undocumented Ignore > Since removing it completely is a stage1 thing, I prefer to keep mdirect-move and -mno-direct-move handlings as before, WarnRemoved and Ignore separately. > There's no need to mention -mno-direct-move at all then. It was only in the > case I thought we wanted to warn against it's use that I added -mno-direct-move. > > Not to mention it is fine too, just keep the handlings and defer it to stage 1. :) BR, Kewen