This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fix 59828 - Broken assembly on ppc* with two -mcpu= options
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:53:59 -0500
- Subject: Re: Fix 59828 - Broken assembly on ppc* with two -mcpu= options
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140118035811 dot GI5390 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAGWvnynAGfrwqDwvJ-zzKPUHDZFAPU0a7VSy9Jj8ccHarqvwKg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150120054137 dot GI12931 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAGWvnyn=QrQB=Qf7pwubBEBABQ=Q86=v1a2Sh9tOz0Jscfv0Rg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150121000243 dot GO12931 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAGWvny=WLDZD8JrkjeWZvqgeew5j31nih+bPKUYBY8JW40k2cg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150128002714 dot GW12931 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:01:44PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> I want to avoid duplicating the -mcpu parsing logic or the Rube
>> Goldberg mechanism to re-generate the -mXXX assembler directive.
>
> Oh well, I had fun writing the patch. I thought it reasonably
> elegant, meeting the goals you state above. You think differently,
> and I won't push my approach further. The bug isn't important enough
> to argue over.
Alan,
I am sorry that you do not want to finish the patch. I don't
understand why you find the command line argument so appealing when
the .machine pseudo-op was designed for this purpose.
Thanks, David