This is the mail archive of the 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] Fix up LTO TARGET_OPTION_NODE handling on x86 (PR lto/64374)

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 08:48:19PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Thanks, the i386 parts of the patch are OK, but I think you want to add the reverse
> > transformation, too.  I.e. if someone compiles with -fPIC but links without.
> I've only done it this way because that is what
> ix86_option_override_internal was doing, but supposedly only because the
> command line option is only about the non-PIC variants.
> So I agree that the other direction makes sense too and will adjust it.
> > My plan to fix the testcase was to put it into ix86_function_specific_restore
> > which would save need for a new hook. But I am fine either way (just can't
> > approve the newhook)
> The way the streaming in now works is that we don't have a gcc_options
> structure anywhere, so if it was done in the *_restore hook, you'd need
> to *_save it first and then restore.

I see, we call cl_target_option_restore but not the hook.  Oh well, then.
Cleaning this up for GCC 6 would be amazing - I am sure we can do with fewer
hooks and less of target code.

> Richard, are you ok with the new hook?
> 	Jakub

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