Re: PR33713: remove -fforce-addr

["Michael Meissner" <michael dot meissner at amd dot com>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:50:51PM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi folks.
> 
> I'm picking up this patch that Steven attached to the PR but didn't
> submit to the list.  The patch removes support for -fforce-addr.
> 
> 	http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33713
> 
> I have added a changelog, incorporated the change suggested by Paolo,
> fixed a typo, and tested it on x86_64-linux.  There are no regressions.
> 
> Is this OK for mainline?
> 
> 	PR33713
> 	* doc/invoke.texi: Remove -fforce-addr documentation.
> 	* expr.c (emit_move_insn): Remove use of flag_force_addr.
> 	(expand_expr_real_1): Same.
> 	(do_tablejump): Same.
> 	Call memory_address instead of memory_address_noforce.
> 	* expr.h (memory_address_noforce): Remove prototype.
> 	* explow.c (memory_address): Remove support for flag_force_addr.
> 	(validize_mem): Same.
> 	(memory_address_noforce): Remove.
> 	* common.opt: Add dummy documentation for -fforce-addr.
> 	* combine.c (can_combine_p): Remove -fforce-addr comment.
> 	* config/cris/cris.h: Update CC1_SPEC comment with regards to
> 	-fforce-addr.
> 	(OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS): Remove set of flag_force_addr.
> 	* config/m68k/m68k.h (PIC_CASE_VECTOR_ADDRESS): Remove comment
> 	relating to memory_address_noforce.
> 
> 	* gcc.c-torture/compile/20050802-1.c: Remove.
> 	* gcc.c-torture/compile/20011113-1.c: Remove.

I'm coming in late to this.  Given there were a few examples that were faster
with -fforce-addr, do we want to remove it without trying to fix the code?  I
didn't see from the bug report that the slowdowns had been addressed.

I also would prefer a deprecated switch get a warning, rather than silently
accepting it.

-- 
Michael Meissner, AMD
90 Central Street, MS 83-29, Boxborough, MA, 01719, USA
michael.meissner@amd.com