From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99BA23846410 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:41:41 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 99BA23846410 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 99BA23846410 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714048903; cv=none; b=A5cL4cS3e+ov88oMzfO04Z77CQQg8js+LaYB1K45gKwvz/W2eYd2klhvUm4p5c99PgBSrVPVirnECJbAUu/9ztUWy71SDkuWM4eTKS17zge0jOKBh/l9fFTqcXoyNt9n0vMo+al1z9jMv14dyRDXpxWZ7b0kZPcM1bYe9RtJXro= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714048903; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SCPRrA/qqB8ilajgonG411ymPEoMa/78KQ8UOlj3lG4=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=xqlzntUX0AhJujHy0U3MFnBkX/mkCw4LqtoiIBibX7YxDXJ4QDWy0c8lPdBTH6aLJLYeKKopsj59D9rDFDT5LD1cvFBU35o4AVcEdATIfkj0ErsjMBd+rVckB5MTq+ndv04Ex1ZjrRJLEVX2WjEAYylm0FV9NtVAvlD52xvZ4Zw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1714048901; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+J2YqniZg4O2kKL3oQt3LSDUF9CqMvTXpEjDOwGtp2g=; b=XefM29DR0YmxhpEgUhgf8RnJtdoteMyiac9YKFvsvmkfUstbqaNSsiYrDMjyw77LwXJchm nx9QxjbgDfWXHEtaAw6JeHHtOUA2K4u2NW7qd3jBRd319X3M9xeBk76Nv2HTNLvISY2Yhm vfB3NRAsfMfEyXqkoKLnipv+2pRqSYQ= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-437-dBioTTqpPr2HZ23Xcp9m9w-1; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:41:39 -0400 X-MC-Unique: dBioTTqpPr2HZ23Xcp9m9w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57CAC803505; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.45.224.5]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1270C2166B34; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:41:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 43PCfbau533780 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:41:37 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 43PCfaww533779; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:41:36 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:41:36 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Martin Jambor Cc: GCC Patches , Michal Jires , Gerald Pfeifer Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Porting-to-14: Mention new pragma GCC Target behavior Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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: On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 02:34:22PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > when looking at a package build issue with GCC 14, Michal Jireš noted a > different behavior of pragma GCC Target. This snippet tries to describe > the gist of the problem. I have left it in the C section even though it > is not really C specific, but could not think of a good name for a new > section for it. Ideas (and any other suggestions for improvements) > welcome, of course. The change was more subtle. We used to define/undefine the ISA macros in C in GCC 13 and older as well, but only when using integrated preprocessor during compilation, so it didn't work that way with -save-temps or separate -E and -S/-c steps. While in C++ it behaved as if the define/undefines aren't done at all (they were done, but after preprocessing/lexing everything, so didn't affect anything). In GCC 14, it behaves in C++ the same as in C in older versions, and additionally they are defined/undefined also when using separate preprocessing, in both C and C++. Jakub