From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5504 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2012 01:42:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 5496 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Oct 2012 01:42:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f175.google.com) (209.85.220.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 01:42:06 +0000 Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so10522918vcq.20 for ; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:42:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.86.36 with SMTP id m4mr2316275vez.14.1349314925320; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.128.169 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:42:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120927224228.GA24889@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> References: <20120912224303.GA19348@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> <20120917195131.GA22648@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> <20120920195755.GA18581@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> <20120927224228.GA24889@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 01:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rs6000 infrastructure cleanup (switches), revised patch #2b From: David Edelsohn To: Michael Meissner , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, bergner@vnet.ibm.com, segher@kernel.crashing.org, iain@codesourcery.com, andreast-list@fgznet.ch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2 @@ -1115,7 +1118,8 @@ static const struct attribute_spec rs600 { NULL, 0, 0, false, false, false, NULL, false } }; =0C -#ifndef MASK_STRICT_ALIGN +#ifndef OPTION_MASK_STRICT_ALIGN +#define OPTION_MASK_STRICT_ALIGN 0 #define MASK_STRICT_ALIGN 0 #endif #ifndef TARGET_PROFILE_KERNEL Why does this fragment define OPTION_MASK_STRICT_ALIGN but does not remove definition of MASK_STRICT_ALIGN? Similarly for -#ifndef MASK_64BIT +#ifndef OPTION_MASK_64BIT +#define OPTION_MASK_64BIT 0 #define MASK_64BIT 0 #endif Why define both OPTION_MASK_64BIT and MASK_64BIT? And +/* Map OPTION_ back into TARGET_ options in rs6000_isa_flags. */ Why set up correspondence for all OPTION_xxx flags back to TARGET_xxx flags? Thanks, David