On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 08:51:01AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > on 2022/9/1 23:04, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 05:05:44PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > >> Without any explicit -mpowerpc64 (and -mno-), I think we all agree > >> that -m64 should set OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 in opts, conversely -m32 > >> should unset OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 in opts. > > > > The latter only for OSes that do not handle -mpowerpc64 correctly. > > I think it's the same for the OSes that handle -mpowerpc64 correctly.
No. -m32 should not set or unset POWERPC64. The two options are independent. -m64 on the other hand forces POWERPC64 to on. -m64 -mno-powerpc64 is invalid (and we do indeed error on that). But we do allow -m32 -mno-powerpc64 -m64 (silently enabling it again), urgh. > > Note that it's for the context without any explicit -mpowerpc64 (and > -mno-), assuming we don't "unset OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 in opts" for > -m32, then the command line "-m64 -m32" would not be the same as > "-m32", since the previous "-m64" sets OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 in opts > and it's still kept, it's unexpected. No. -m64 -m32 does not set POWERPC64! Or it shouldn't, in any case :-( Segher
