This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Mixed sparc -m32/-m64 testsuite failures
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- To: davem at redhat dot com, rth at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jakub at redhat dot com, pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at, tromey at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 15:31:04 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Mixed sparc -m32/-m64 testsuite failures
> From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 11:57:10AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Richard, if his platform can run 64-bit binaries, why is he
> > getting this situation? :-)
>
> It can. IIRC, he's got one of each.
> r~
No no, I test one platform that used to "config.guess" as sparc-* and
now after Richards change to config.guess it "guesses" as sparcv9-*.
But that's irrelevant other than the fact that tests which used to get
bypassed because they required sparcv9-* now get run.
I run the testsuite with extra passes added in RUNTESTFLAGS to test
-m64. Look at the top of gcc.dg/20001101-1.c:
> /* { dg-do run { target sparcv9-*-* sparc64-*-* } } */
> /* { dg-options "-O2 -m32 -mcpu=ultrasparc -mvis" } */
See it specifies its own -m32, and when my RUNTESTFLAGS adds -m64 you
have both options listed and it spews diagnostics which I showed in
the original report:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-04/msg00714.html
>>So if I wasn't clear in my original email, what I'm reporting is a
bug in command line option handling.<<
One of these two options should override the other, when both are
passed it currently behaves as if both were in effect. Contrast this
with -O0 followed by -O2 which does the right thing.
According to Richard, there's no way to correctly handle this in
specs. Is that understanding correct?
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Director of Systems Architecture
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Global Services