Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Gary Oblock]

Martin,

Regarding the corporate legal gibberish. It's automatic
and not under my control also we're not supposed to
use private emails for work...

Gary
________________________________
From: Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz>
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 12:20 AM
To: Gary Oblock <gary@amperecomputing.com>; gcc@gcc.gnu.org <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[EXTERNAL EMAIL NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. Please be mindful of safe email handling and proprietary information protection practices.]


On 1/7/22 09:10, Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote:
> An optimization flag that I recently added is being
> set to zero in push_cfun (which after a couple of
> levels of calls cl_optimization_restore to this.)

Question is: what's the value of the flag in your IPA pass
if you set -finterleaving-index-32-bits? It should not really be zero.

>
> The flag defined like this:
>
> finterleaving-index-32-bits
> Common Var(flag_interleaving_index_32_bits) Init(0) Optimization
> Structure reorganization optimization, instance interleaving.
>
> Note, I'm working around this but l'd really like
> to not have to do so therefore I'm wondering if somebody
> could explain what's happening and what I'd need
> to do instead?

You defined the flag well.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information that is confidential and proprietary to Ampere Computing or its subsidiaries. It is to be used solely for the purpose of furthering the parties' business relationship. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

Can you please remove this ugly notice that it's completely misleading? If not, I would then
recommend creating a private email.

Martin