This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PowerPC SVR4 ABI compliance fix
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:43:51 -0800
- Subject: Re: PowerPC SVR4 ABI compliance fix
- References: <zack@codesourcery.com> <20011121201049.C3915@codesourcery.com> <200111220423.XAA29732@makai.watson.ibm.com>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 11:23:08PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> Zack Weinberg writes:
>
> >> Why do we need MASK_FOO and MASK_FOO_SET (MULTIPLE, STRING, and
> >> AIX_STRUCT)?
>
> Zack> It's to detect whether the corresponding -m switches have been used
> Zack> explicitly on the command line, but there must be a better way to do
> Zack> that.
>
> Yes, I've always disliked that waste of target_flags. It seems to
> be an artifact of the order in which GCC parses flags. Maybe there is
> some way to save a copy of the flags so that we can go back and inquire if
> it originally was explicitly set by the user instead of setting multiple
> target_flags. I don't know if GCC provides a hook at the appropriate
> place. If it doesn't I would support adding one so that we can get rid of
> this type of wastefulness.
In the mean time, would the patch be acceptable if I took out the -m
switches?
zw