This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Rs6000 infrastructure cleanup (switches)


On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:21:09AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hello Michael, 
> 
> On 12 Sep 2012, at 23:43, Michael Meissner wrote:
> 
> >  It would be nice to know if this doesn't break the other ppc
> > environments (AIX, Darwin) before I commit it.  Are there any problems with
> > this patch? 
> 
> For powerpc-darwin9, there are a couple of issues which I've hacked around to get bootstrap to complete.
> 
> 1. In rs6000.h
> 
> Where there are TARGET_XXX macros set to zero and guarded by config-time HAVE_AS_YYY (e.g. TARGET_POPCNTD, HAVE_AS_POPCNTD)
> This causes an error when the #define TARGET_POPCNTD OPTION_POPCNTD is parsed.

I think changing the #ifdef TARGET_XXX to #ifdef OPTION_XXX's is the right
thing.  I wish the opt*.awk scripts did not change TARGET_<xxx> to OPTION_<xxx>
and MASK_<xxx> to OPTION_MASK_<xxx>.  I had already made a similar change in
the update to the patches I was going to send out today, but I will check them
once again.

> For the sake of making progress, I just worked around these by moving the guarded defines to where the OPTION_XXXs are equated -- I.E: 
> 
> #ifndef HAVE_AS_XXX
> #define TARGET_XXX 0
> #else
> #define TARGET_XXX OPTION_XXX
> #endif
> 
> likely, that's not the Right Solution, but it allowed me to get to the next step -
> 
> 2. rs6000_misc_flags{,explicit} and rs6000_debug_flags{,explicit} are declared as HOST_WIDE_INT which is 'long long' for this target.  This causes fails on lines 1841, 1842, 1844 and 1846 in rs6000.c because of mismatched format specifier and argument.  I just worked around this with a temporary definition of a suitable format descriptor.

Ok.  Thanks.

> With these two hacks, bootstrap completes for all langs including Java, Ada and ObjC++.
> I haven't done any formal reg-tests yet, but a selection of checks across the board look reasonable so far.
> 
> If there is any other specific input that would be useful let me know - these older platforms are somewhat slow for the full build/test cycle.

Not at the moment, let me try get a revised patch out there.

Thanks for doing the tests.

-- 
Michael Meissner, IBM
5 Technology Place Drive, M/S 2757, Westford, MA 01886-3141, USA
meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com	fax +1 (978) 399-6899


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]