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 583CF3858D28 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 583CF3858D28 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 (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29H7BJhs021559; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:29 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=sEiJblSvTpizzi5ZAZ91iYMOBI0rZ9sLtFeKSuZsJeo=; b=nb8QvEQuFWrJYYW7SvAb6O7gjEuc9ksT3EmHfV1dG9S/0Fsqm1mAvGho+mLOgyhr8f8w ZOFpiSWUiBoFL1pfS+6XZxFUhLhk+dCMUjJqyduXt5sXRi1lep1iiNQHwjwY7w3hl/eB i0+OU0WrKEvFLgjYF99627sK6+EtIBeHyXQ4UmoggbfE5HbI3C9c25kD9JQmTIo83sJi 4ngYQWW6koD8PatW0FJXe0ali+AWfIJEtAFyHLUDzeZABtvgeny5U/gu6UilDgGKt1p4 QtWaTwu5rpOTRBzGhOMqMj9ncSHrEDsTm0y8Ju7NqcWikA9LgI+taImG9S9BR7QAz6CY Zw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3k86g5t1f3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:28 +0000 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29H8L9uf008719; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:28 GMT Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3k86g5t1e7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:28 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 29H8ogAe020123; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3k7mg8t17k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:26 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 29H8xNUV42008898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:23 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B490AA404D; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1375AA4053; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.200.39.63] (unknown [9.200.39.63]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:59:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <852fb596-cc47-ab75-08ca-e3bf94157974@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:59:20 +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 v2] rs6000: Rework option -mpowerpc64 handling [PR106680] Content-Language: en-US To: Iain Sandoe Cc: Peter Bergner , GCC Patches , David Edelsohn , Segher Boessenkool References: <63afd344-38fa-7a8e-4958-8256c2a9bca7@linux.ibm.com> <4652D74F-D0EF-4DFD-A87C-D2CA1996E468@sandoe.co.uk> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: QV016OTUcABumrBHplLbHKbOxl_fWofk X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: y1cxYcKIL7dfYqTSNLUcI2b8iOBHPJfP X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-17_06,2022-10-17_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2209130000 definitions=main-2210170049 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Iain, on 2022/10/13 18:09, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > >> On 12 Oct 2022, at 09:57, Iain Sandoe wrote: >>> On 12 Oct 2022, at 09:12, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> >>> 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! >> >> I kicked off a bootstrap - and 'check-gcc-c' .. if all goes well, there will be an >> answer in ≈ 7hours. If something fails, the answer will be sooner ;) > > bootstrapped and tested on powerpc-darwin9, with default CPU configuration. > I have not yet tried tuning or cpu configure options. > > testresults compare “nominal" against a recent set (another day elapsed time > would be needed for a proper regtest). Sounds good! Many thanks again for your help! BR, Kewen