https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106680
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #10) > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9) > > Note that now we only disable implicit powerpc64 for -m32 when the > > OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 is set. > > > > /* Don't expect powerpc64 enabled on those OSes with OS_MISSING_POWERPC64, > > since they do not save and restore the high half of the GPRs correctly > > in all cases. If the user explicitly specifies it, we won't interfere > > with the user's specification. */ > > #ifdef OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 > > if (OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 > > && TARGET_32BIT > > && TARGET_POWERPC64 > > && !(rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64)) > > rs6000_isa_flags &= ~OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64; > > #endif > > > > But rtems.h doesn't define OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 > > RTEMS supports the 64-bit PowerPC for the 64-bit multilibs. > 64-bit kernel should support 64-bit PowerPC, but does 32-bit kernel support saving and restoring 64-bit regs? The current rtems.h is saying yes, if it's no, we should fix the rtems.h and you won't need the explicit -mno-powerpc64 then. btw, take the comments in freebsd64.h for example. /* FreeBSD doesn't support saving and restoring 64-bit regs with a 32-bit kernel. This is supported when running on a 64-bit kernel with COMPAT_FREEBSD32, but tell GCC it isn't so that our 32-bit binaries are compatible. */ #define OS_MISSING_POWERPC64 !TARGET_64BIT
