This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, trunk] Add Save/Explicit option support
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 04:21:25PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Michael Meissner
> <michael.meissner@amd.com> wrote:
> > Nobody commented on the patch I submitted on the 6th. I suspect it got lost
> > with my other messages about commits to the branch. This patch fixes a bug
> > that prevented the default flag (target_flags) from being saved and restored,
> > when the options are linked in the gcc driver.
> >
> > Is this ok to submit?
>
> Why not always assume 'Explicit', thus unconditionally adding the _explicit
> variable?
Explicit only makes sense for the Mask variables, and is only useful if the
backend actually uses the <var>_explicit variable. It is used in the x86 if
the user does something like -msse5 -mno-sse2 to determine what options were
explicitly set vs. those options that were implicitly set by other options.
Granted, in the x86 case since there is only one additional flags word that we
care about (assuming my the other patch that I've submitted is accepted), we
don't really need it, I can just copy the ix86_isa_flags_explicit field in the
x86 part of the copy, but was convenient. If it is an impediment to getting
the patch checked in, I can remove it.
--
Michael Meissner, AMD
90 Central Street, MS 83-29, Boxborough, MA, 01719, USA
michael.meissner@amd.com