On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 06:03:40PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/25/23 6:20 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > btw, I was also expecting that we don't implicitly set
> > OPTION_MASK_PCREL any more for Power10, that is to remove
> > OPTION_MASK_PCREL from OTHER_POWER10_MASKS.
>
> So my patch removes
On 11/13/23 8:33 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> if (PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS)
>
>> + else
>> +{
>> + if (TARGET_PCREL
>> + && (rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_PCREL) != 0)
>> +error ("use of %qs is invalid for this target", "-mpcrel");
>>rs6000_isa_flags &=
Hi Peter,
on 2023/11/11 07:51, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/27/23 9:06 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Assuming we only have ELFv2_ABI_CHECK in PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS, we
>> can have either TARGET_PCREL or !TARGET_PCREL after the checking.
>> For the latter, it's fine and don't need any checks. For the
On 11/11/23 5:21 am, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Jeevitha, can you test this patch to see whether it fixes the testsuite
> issue caused by your earlier patch that was approved, but not yet pushed?
> That was the use GPR2 for register allocation, correct? Note, you'll need
> to update the patch to
On 8/25/23 6:20 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> btw, I was also expecting that we don't implicitly set
> OPTION_MASK_PCREL any more for Power10, that is to remove
> OPTION_MASK_PCREL from OTHER_POWER10_MASKS.
So my patch removes the flag from the default power10 flags, like
you want. However, it doesn't
On 8/27/23 9:06 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Assuming we only have ELFv2_ABI_CHECK in PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS, we
> can have either TARGET_PCREL or !TARGET_PCREL after the checking.
> For the latter, it's fine and don't need any checks. For the former,
> if it's implicit, for !TARGET_PREFIXED we will
on 2023/8/26 06:04, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/25/23 6:20 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Assuming the current PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS unchanged, when
>> PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS is true, all its required conditions are
>> satisfied, it should be safe. while PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS is
>> false, it means the
On 8/25/23 6:20 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Assuming the current PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS unchanged, when
> PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS is true, all its required conditions are
> satisfied, it should be safe. while PCREL_SUPPORTED_BY_OS is
> false, it means the given subtarget doesn't support it, or one
> or
on 2023/8/25 11:20, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/24/23 12:56 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> By looking into the uses of function rs6000_pcrel_p, I think we can
>> just replace it with TARGET_PCREL. Previously we don't require PCREL
>> unset for any unsupported target/OS, so we need rs6000_pcrel_p() to
>>
On 8/24/23 12:56 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> By looking into the uses of function rs6000_pcrel_p, I think we can
> just replace it with TARGET_PCREL. Previously we don't require PCREL
> unset for any unsupported target/OS, so we need rs6000_pcrel_p() to
> ensure it's really supported in those use
Hi Peter,
on 2023/8/24 10:07, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/21/23 8:51 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> The following patch has been bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64-linux.
>>
>> I think we should test this on powerpc64le-linux P8 or P9 (no P10) as well.
>
> That's a good idea!
>
>
>
>> I think
On 8/21/23 8:51 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> The following patch has been bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64-linux.
>
> I think we should test this on powerpc64le-linux P8 or P9 (no P10) as well.
That's a good idea!
> I think this should be moved to be with the hunk on PCREL:
>
> /* If the
Hi Jeevitha,
on 2023/8/21 18:32, jeevitha wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The following patch has been bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64-linux.
I think we should test this on powerpc64le-linux P8 or P9 (no P10) as well.
>
> It is currently possible to incorrectly enable PCREL for targets that do
13 matches
Mail list logo
