Re: rs6000_handle_option global state avoidance, part 1

[Michael Eager <eager at eagercon dot com>]

Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2011, Michael Eager wrote:
>
> > David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Two options, -mcmodel= and -mfpu=, had cases that fell through to the
> > > > next case without comments to indicate if this was intended.  I added
> > > > comments to make the semantics explicit.  Given the documentation, it
> > > > may well be intentional for -mcmodel= but is more doubtful for -mfpu=.
> > > I doubt that either of the fall through cases was intended.
> > >
> > > Alan, is mcmodel suppose to set m64?
> > >
> > > Michael, is mfpu suppose to set mrecip?
> > No.  There was a break statement at the end of case OPT_mfpu which
> > disappeared when OPT_mrecip was added.
>
> Thanks.  I'll apply this patch which removes the fall through, and adds 
> explicit Var and Init to the mfpu= entry in rs6000.opt to avoid problems 
> (when building as C++, as shown by a regression tester) with 
> 0-initialization of the field that gets automatically generated by the 
> .opt machinery for any Target option not using Var.

Looks good.

--
Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077