This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] ARM FreeBSD fix bootstrap
- From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
- To: Andreas Tobler <andreast-list at fgznet dot ch>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:39:20 +0000
- Subject: Re: [patch] ARM FreeBSD fix bootstrap
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5679AA32 dot 5010305 at fgznet dot ch> <567A75F4 dot 2090805 at arm dot com> <567AF5DB dot 70504 at fgznet dot ch> <568B9BCE dot 9050502 at arm dot com> <568C2FB5 dot 3030202 at fgznet dot ch>
On 05/01/16 21:03, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 05.01.16 11:32, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 23/12/15 19:28, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>
>>> 2015-12-23 Andreas Tobler <andreast@gcc.gnu.org>
>>>
>>> * config/arm/freebsd.h: Rename SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS to
>>> SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_INTERNAL_OPTIONS. Adjust to check
>>> unaligned_access on the gcc_options set.
>>> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_option_override_internal): Use
>>> SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_INTERNAL_OPTIONS.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is OK.
>>
>> One question, though, is whether you should explicitly override a user
>> request for unaligned accesses without at least warning that this is
>> being done.
>
>
> Like this?
>
> config/arm/freebsd.h:
>
> #define SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_INTERNAL_OPTIONS \
> do { \
> if (opts_set->x_unaligned_access == 1) \
> warning (0, "target CPU does not support unaligned accesses");\
> if (opts->x_unaligned_access) \
> opts->x_unaligned_access = 0;
>
Something like that, but the problem is not that the CPU does not
support unaligned accesses, but that FreeBSD does not support CPUs doing
unaligned accesses.
Anyway, I'll pre-approve a patch adding a suitable warning here.
R.
> Thank you for the feedback.
>
> Andreas
>