This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATHCH] Disable inline asm for in-tree mpfr (PR69134)
- From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- To: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 10:28:52 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATHCH] Disable inline asm for in-tree mpfr (PR69134)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: gcc.gnu.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gcc.gnu.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.de;
- References: <HE1PR07MB0905C105ACF251FCE1780826E4F30 at HE1PR07MB0905 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <568BBDF7 dot 8040300 at redhat dot com> <HE1PR07MB090587484749F80CBD81F67CE4F30 at HE1PR07MB0905 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <9FFD837C-4FE2-405D-B1C6-94770F8BCA9C at suse dot de> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 20 dot 1603192107570 dot 1799 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <AM4PR07MB1571AD75E6792EEFB3634852E48E0 at AM4PR07MB1571 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 20 dot 1603201033510 dot 6937 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
On 20.03.2016 11:03, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>>>>>>> So I looked for a way to disable the asm code, and found it can be
>>>>>>> done, but differently than for in-tree gmp. See the attached patch.
>>>
>>> As noted in PR 67728, it seems that gcc's intrusive way of overriding
>>> CFLAGS also breaks GMP itself, not just MPFR, by hiding the macro NO_ASM
>>> that GMP tries to define through its own CFLAGS. So maybe Bernd's patch
>>> should be duplicated to also apply to GMP?
>>
>> I agree, the question is only when. Passing -DNO_ASM in AM_CFLAGS would
>> just define NO_ASM twice for GMP-4.3.2 which would not make any problems
>> and fix the mis-compilation of GMP-6.1.0. That might be possible in
>> stage4 if you like.
>
> It is confusing that we are using the same names for stages in the
> release cycle and stages in bootstrap, for a bit I couldn't understand
> why this would only apply to that extra bootstrap stage :-(
>
> I don't know if I *want* us to go there and pass -DNO_ASM, I think I'd
> rather have gcc call plain "make" without a gazillion variables
> appended, but if people care about those PRs, I am guessing that this
> would be less intrusive.
>
I think the in-tree build uses different CFLAGS for each
bootstrap-stage, and there is a good reason for that.
Not every package would work in-tree, it needs co-operation and good
will from both sides, in general it does not work at all (e.g. in-tree
flex).
Bernd.