On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:01:45PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:26:27PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On 5/29/19 8:16 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > >> +/* ISA masks setting fusion options. */
> > >> +#define OTHER_FUSION_MASKS (OPTION_MASK_P8_FUSION
> > >> \
> > >> + | OPTION_MASK_P8_FUSION_SIGN)
> > > Or merge the two masks into one?
> >
> > I'll ask Mike to explain this, as I don't know why there are two masks.
>
> The intention is to allow for using the numeric prefixed instructions without
> pc-relative. I.e.
[ snip ]
I was suggesting merging these two P8_FUSION{,_SIGN} into one. But, we'll
get to that some day, it doesn't have to be now.
> > >> @@ -36379,6 +36391,7 @@ static struct rs6000_opt_mask const
> > >> rs6000_opt_masks[] =
> > >> { "power9-vector", OPTION_MASK_P9_VECTOR, false,
> > >> true },
> > >> { "powerpc-gfxopt", OPTION_MASK_PPC_GFXOPT, false,
> > >> true },
> > >> { "powerpc-gpopt", OPTION_MASK_PPC_GPOPT, false,
> > >> true },
> > >> + { "prefixed-addr", OPTION_MASK_PREFIXED_ADDR, false,
> > >> true },
> > > Do we want this? Why?
> >
> > Performance folks are using it for testing purposes. Eventually this
> > will probably drop out, but for now I think it's best to have the
> > undocumented switch.
>
> I use that table with -mdebug=reg so I can make sure exactly what options are
> on or off. Please add any undocumented switch to the table.
It's not very nice to have to edit everything in two completely separate
places like this.
Segher
