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 BEF92385843A for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:41:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BEF92385843A Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B6ESYoh017364; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:41:03 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3csmad089n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 14:41:03 +0000 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1B6EeqYH008513; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:41:03 GMT Received: from ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (83.d6.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.214.131]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3csmad0895-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 14:41:02 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B6EbflQ021463; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:41:01 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.17]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3cqyyaxhfj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 14:41:01 +0000 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.235]) by b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1B6EewTA53608704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:40:58 GMT Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3B178060; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:40:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5842C78077; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:40:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.160.44.151] (unknown [9.160.44.151]) by b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:40:57 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <381de00a-fb47-b60e-972c-6bca1d0da8ce@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:40:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059] Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= , "Kewen.Lin" , Segher Boessenkool Cc: Bill Schmidt , GCC Patches , David Edelsohn , Michael Meissner , Richard Biener References: <3f2c6df2-e458-483c-facd-148a3cc3aead@linux.ibm.com> <20211129165712.GU614@gate.crashing.org> <57a263ea-4ef3-c57e-ff4c-2e5833532162@linux.ibm.com> <51fa45ff-cfb2-7b2a-5f42-3344b5aa3280@linux.ibm.com> <8905cc4f-0390-9890-8084-ec8492dc7fbf@suse.cz> From: Peter Bergner In-Reply-To: <8905cc4f-0390-9890-8084-ec8492dc7fbf@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: ixw-BRPDIV3AtPTgbOIfM9MmmfHGuqns X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: YO6wgQ4Hb_P2wDrauX-GEAaSRiGyg48h X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2021-12-06_05,2021-12-06_02,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2112060091 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) 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, 06 Dec 2021 14:41:09 -0000 On 12/6/21 3:35 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 12/4/21 00:23, Peter Bergner wrote: >> I thought Martin and richi mentioned that target attribute options >> are treated as if they are appended to the end of the command line >> options, so they can potentially override earlier options, but they >> don't actually ignore them? > > No, the described behavior is true for optimize attribute: > > optimize (string, …) > ... > The optimize attribute arguments of a function behave behave as if appended to the command-line. > > but: > > target (string, …) > ... > The original target command-line options are ignored. Ok, you learn something new every day. Thanks for setting me straight! Peter