From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402173858D32 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:35:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 402173858D32 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 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 28514VrB004984; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:35:56 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=px+gPjpZafnEGmq7TJOrG9nsvQCvYPsotcwCRgnhmpo=; b=eapXBC0QOnQwDpYUlgocxMgM1cmz/sceG5+CJmdwyOpVgJPHhKS0Q/TNSUyYex3NYYfY 33UZtcEGfDeoPKs8tqX68wiqk3WW7E73eF0wE2m5h4lXRZOdNouLiAca/WYDkv+I787z Dhk85wgfBvldZyHHXn/C2XMro+NeIVpFoiI1D/9faXVapYGKiTGs9prTMa1S87YZpeAE 8QUKtoxFhORnTt1oUn0bYtLZNgA5e32qIzr9+IInCaegwtbq5AquaubHshUOjfomtklj E9ISs+CoOcRwhaRdfnesuXzouoGLm1rpS3oySR+J0TftBe36/+7nK3yrCGHQuGCwZfk7 Iw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3jd74p9k55-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Sep 2022 02:35:56 +0000 Received: from m0098420.ppops.net (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 2852I43K010547; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:35:56 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3jd74p9k4k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Sep 2022 02:35:56 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2852ZsfN001385; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:35:54 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3jbx6hht20-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Sep 2022 02:35:54 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2852ZqKs41812234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:35:52 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D69A405B; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:35:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A708A4054; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:35:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.200.35.246] (unknown [9.200.35.246]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 02:35:50 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <77fb914e-6ff2-3f6b-c7ff-02b2454e6859@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 10:35:48 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000/test: Fix bswap64-4.c with has_arch_ppc64 [PR106680] Content-Language: en-US To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Peter Bergner , GCC Patches , David Edelsohn References: <69277846-f587-b79e-f741-a2942d326778@linux.ibm.com> <20220831152412.GP25951@gate.crashing.org> <8bf4ef90-8162-0f12-2128-f2b25ffc3240@linux.ibm.com> <20220901150414.GD25951@gate.crashing.org> <84cb6132-d9a3-6410-2b86-27e78d7afcec@linux.ibm.com> <20220902174435.GX25951@gate.crashing.org> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: <20220902174435.GX25951@gate.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: hx8OXFkHLG_zRKPnzmjV_pwPspCoWoNo X-Proofpoint-GUID: vYkwwadvGNuXABP91GOT_dpbxOcLUqFI X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-09-05_02,2022-08-31_03,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2207270000 definitions=main-2209050012 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 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,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 2022/9/3 01:44, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 08:51:01AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> on 2022/9/1 23:04, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 05:05:44PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>>> Without any explicit -mpowerpc64 (and -mno-), I think we all agree >>>> that -m64 should set OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 in opts, conversely -m32 >>>> should unset OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 in opts. >>> >>> The latter only for OSes that do not handle -mpowerpc64 correctly. >> >> I think it's the same for the OSes that handle -mpowerpc64 correctly. > > No. -m32 should not set or unset POWERPC64. The two options are > independent. > > -m64 on the other hand forces POWERPC64 to on. -m64 -mno-powerpc64 is > invalid (and we do indeed error on that). But we do allow > -m32 -mno-powerpc64 -m64 > (silently enabling it again), urgh. I just realized the discussion here depends on how we implemented it, I can understand what you mean now. Yes, if we implemented it like the other option supports in rs6000_option_override_internal, we only get -m32 or -m64 eventually, we don't need to do anything for -m32 but need to forces POWERPC64 for -m64 if it's not set in opts_set. The current implementation by setting and unsetting in command line option handling is bad, it makes us have to set/unset on the way. > >> >> Note that it's for the context without any explicit -mpowerpc64 (and >> -mno-), assuming we don't "unset OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 in opts" for >> -m32, then the command line "-m64 -m32" would not be the same as >> "-m32", since the previous "-m64" sets OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 in opts >> and it's still kept, it's unexpected. > > No. -m64 -m32 does not set POWERPC64! Or it shouldn't, in any case :-( > Yeah, (... does not set/unset), thanks again for your clarification. :) BR, Kewen