From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24989 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2012 18:46:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 24925 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Mar 2012 18:46:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-qc0-f175.google.com) (209.85.216.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:45:52 +0000 Received: by qcso7 with SMTP id o7so3499596qcs.20 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:45:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.137.134 with SMTP id w6mr8459595qct.137.1332787551608; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.89.137 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:45:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PATCH: Remove MaskExists property from option handling From: "H.J. Lu" To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-03/txt/msg01677.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:47 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Joseph S. Myers >> wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Joseph, >>>> >>>> I need to support InverseMask(XXX) in options without the corresponding >>>> Mask(XXX) since XXX is never set directly via a command line option. T= his >>>> patch adds a MaskNeeded property which turns InverseMask(XXX) into >>>> the inverse version of Mask(XXX), which allocates a unique bit and def= ines >>>> the same set of macros as Mask(XXX). =A0Does it look OK? >>> >>> I'd have thought that either Mask or InverseMask with a given mask name >>> (or a standalone target mask record) should cause allocation (only once, >>> no matter how many options use the same mask name), and MaskExists shou= ld >>> be removed, rather than adding MaskNeeded - if I understood correctly t= he >>> purpose for which you are adding MaskNeeded. >>> >> >> That is correct. =A0I will work on a patch to remove =A0MaskExists. >> > > Here is a patch to remove MaskExists. =A0The difference between the old > options.h and the new options.h on Linux/x86-64 are > ... > The same set of macros are provided. =A0The only differences are the > order of bits used and macro definitions. =A0I am doing a full bootstrap = and > test on Linux/x86-64. =A0OK for trunk if there are no regressions? > > I will submit a separate patch to remove MaskExists from all *.opt files = after > this patch is installed. > > Thanks. > > > -- > H.J. > ---- > 2012-03-26 =A0H.J. Lu =A0 > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* opth-gen.awk: Allocated a bit for Mask and InverseMask i= f it > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0hasn't been allocated. =A0Define a target macro for Mask a= nd > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0InverseMask if it hasn't been defined. =A0Remove MaskExists > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0handling. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* doc/options.texi: Remove MaskNeeded. There are no regressions on Linux/x86-64. OK for trunk? Thanks. --=20 H.J.