From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6D0B3858402 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 08:36:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D6D0B3858402 Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id u25so50508655edf.1 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 00:36:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g2TFvhxJ+nNzlrQYb3i079T4C9V5oJmNAUKomWdLogY=; b=SAYkZ30Cd1JDjJun9NTJIrgdLetNsot4zmroTDaa0KZA1YeG9ui9qCHnWem+EUGnVn At3tw2IX1Auoat24qJOzH+4QOZVLAf4ziNO2Eu33z4iPfcE74R//DdPGNY85hEZ6YJxf IQFUdlblNOD9aOnF1lJSibu6bcS5Nh6MEV+RL+MmkvBSlerGdQWcryz9SioeEnmGMBtU RB++pCJdaFAkz3YGOJaml+mPu9sPmBVEYLK4/vocXPWZ/a8hVSPUpnj3AFmXt/UJJhEl M77QbmOv31qCWJgZNsIDpKZnNPy7Lr3m467dP/QahQKllwF2ywy7XEhZfeiLwpoKFmqM WgUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HhZePTVgIE8LJ7sy3AtSSI4n9tyDHFSnkCIu3Yt0P6vmaOdrg UrgI3ghRGLNGle8+DGgtUW3ctyd2QseF9INDRlM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFwCBkcY003d5gKfpKFAA2k4oKvDqV1xqCFr64JR27n6zaGpVgv8NDqUasO7kCMiTb1ae0sNvA2oOG2R6MyZA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7fab:: with SMTP id qk43mr4924086ejc.624.1641803793810; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 00:36:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 09:36:23 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero To: Gary Oblock Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 08:36:36 -0000 On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:12 AM Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote: > > An optimization flag that I recently added is being > set to zero in push_cfun (which after a couple of > levels of calls cl_optimization_restore to this.) > > The flag defined like this: > > finterleaving-index-32-bits > Common Var(flag_interleaving_index_32_bits) Init(0) Optimization > Structure reorganization optimization, instance interleaving. > > Note, I'm working around this but l'd really like > to not have to do so therefore I'm wondering if somebody > could explain what's happening and what I'd need > to do instead? Did you rebuild all of GCC after adding the option? Note that when you look at the option from LTO and from within an IPA pass then you have to use opt_for_fn (..) since the "global" option at link time will be not set (unless you specify it again at link time), it will be only present on the functions of the compile TU it was set globally. > > Thanks, > > Gary > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, i= s for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information th= at is confidential and proprietary to Ampere Computing or its subsidiaries.= It is to be used solely for the purpose of furthering the parties' busines= s relationship. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this e= mail (or any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you are not th= e intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently= delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments there= to.