RFA: Remove TARGET_SWITCHES from the SH port

[Richard Sandiford]

Joern RENNECKE <joern.rennecke@st.com> writes:
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>OK, thanks for the explanation.  In that case, would it be OK to commit
>>the patch without the removal of superh.h and superh64.h?  The patch
>>won't really break anything related to them, in the sense that defining
>>TARGET_PROCESSOR_SWITCHES wouldn't have any effect in the current
>>sources anyway, even if the header files _were_ used.  The macros
>>will then just document for what a future .opt file would need to contain.
>
> Yes, except that one of the messages in your patch is not quite right:
>
>> +  if ((old_flags ^ target_flags) & (MASK_SH1 | MASK_SH2 | MASK_SH3
>> +				    | MASK_SH_E | MASK_HARD_SH4
>> +				    | MASK_FPU_SINGLE | MASK_SH4))
>> +    return _("created and used with different architectures");
>
> I think this should rather say:
> "created and used with different architectures / ABIs" .  -m4, -m4-single
> and -m4-single-only are for the same architecture, but different ABIs.

OK, thanks, installed with that change.

> FWIW the flag_mask mechanism was written with the intention that it'd fit
> into toplev.c (given a suitable interface to supply the mask).  But as the
> SH port is still the only one to redefine TARGET_PCH_VALID_P, there is
> probably not much demand for this.

FWIW, I'm thinking about ways in which the options scripts could
help here.  No promises though.

Richard