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] |
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 02:09:31PM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > On 11/02/2015 09:44 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > (@Uli: I'd like to hear your opinion on this issue. > > Original message: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03403.html). > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:09:39PM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > >> Why do we need x_s390_arch_specified and x_s390_tune_specified? You > >> should be able to use opts_set->x_s390_arch and opts_set->x_s390_tune > >> instead? (patch attached, your tests keep working with that change). > > > > The idea was that -mtune on the command line is *not* overridden > > by the "arch" target attribute. This would allow to change the > > architecture for a specific function and keep the -mtune= option > > from the command line. But as a matter of fact, the current patch > > doesn't do it either (bug?). > Your testcases even seem to check for this behavior so it looked > intentional to me. But I agree that being able to keep the -mtune > cmdline value for a function while only changing the used > instruction set would be good. > > Could you please elaborate why implementing this requires the new flags? I turns out that this is not necessary at all. New patch attached with all the proposed changes. The code got even simpler without the special logic for -mtune= handling. The new patch has already passed full testsuite. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt IBM Germany
Attachment:
0001-ChangeLog
Description: Text document
Attachment:
0001-S-390-Implement-attribute-target-and-pragma-GCC-targ.patch.gz
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |