PING^2 [PATCH v2] rs6000: Rework option -mpowerpc64 handling [PR106680]

["Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>]

Hi,

Gentle ping this:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603350.html

BR,
Kewen

> on 2022/10/12 16:12, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> PR106680 shows that -m32 -mpowerpc64 is different from
>> -mpowerpc64 -m32, this is determined by the way how we
>> handle option powerpc64 in rs6000_handle_option.
>>
>> Segher pointed out this difference should be taken as
>> a bug and we should ensure that option powerpc64 is
>> independent of -m32/-m64.  So this patch removes the
>> handlings in rs6000_handle_option and add some necessary
>> supports in rs6000_option_override_internal instead.
>>
>> With this patch, if users specify -m{no-,}powerpc64, the
>> specified value is honoured, otherwise, for 64bit it
>> always enables OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64; while for 32bit
>> and TARGET_POWERPC64 and OS_MISSING_POWERPC64, it disables
>> OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64.
>>
>> btw, following Segher's suggestion, I did some tries to warn
>> when OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 is set for OS_MISSING_POWERPC64.
>> If warn for the case that powerpc64 is specified explicitly,
>> there are some TCs using -m32 -mpowerpc64 on ppc64-linux,
>> they need some updates, meanwhile the artificial run
>> with "--target_board=unix'{-m32/-mpowerpc64}'" will have
>> noisy warnings on ppc64-linux.  If warn for the case that
>> it's specified implicitly, they can just be initialized by
>> TARGET_DEFAULT (like -m32 on ppc64-linux) or set from the 
>> given cpu mask, we have to special case them and not to warn.
>> As Segher's latest comment, I decide not to warn them and
>> keep it consistent with before.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and regress-tested on:
>>   - powerpc64-linux-gnu P7 and P8 {-m64,-m32}
>>   - powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9 and P10
>>   - powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0 {-maix64,-maix32}
>>
>> Hi Iain, could you help to test this new patch on darwin
>> again?  Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Is it ok for trunk if darwin testing goes well?
>>
>