Hi, On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Wouldn't this also break compiling code that contains power9 > > > instructions but guarded by runtime tests to only be executed on > > > power9 machines? That seems a valid usecase, and it'd be bad if the > > > assembler fails to compile such. (You can't use -mcpu=power9 as > > > work around as the other unguarded code is not supposed to be using > > > power9 insns). > > > > You'll need to put .machine directives around them. > > My worry with that is there may be too much legacy code that does not do > this :-( We'll see once we put gcc9 through a distro build. My worry really only was that the change would result in compile breakage without a sensible solution. (I'll just give all packages whose build failures prevent gcc9 from being the new system compiler to Alan for fixing ;-) ). Ciao, Michael.
