It did help people to identify what extension used in the binary, so I
would prefer keep that enable by default.

and lld is begin fix those merge issue, so the situation should be improved
soon.


Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@rivosinc.com> 於 2023年2月24日 週五 10:29 寫道:

> We generate a handful of attributes by default, but they don't really
> encode any useful information.  We've broadly stopped ascribing any
> meaning to them in binutils; but they trip up LLVM, older toolchains,
> and users.  So let's just turn them off by default.  The old binaries
> will still be floating around, but at least this way we'll stop tripping
> over new incompatibilities.
>
> If we get to a point where there's some attributes that are defined that
> we can use then we can sort out how to turn those on without turning on
> the old ones, but unless I'm missing something the current set of
> attributes are too broken to be useful for anything.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
>         * config.gcc (--with-riscv-attribute): Default to off.
> ---
> I know it's pretty late, but I'd like to target this for GCC-13.  The
> Zmmul stuff has resulted in another round of build breakages that we're
> going to have to chase down, and while we could update everything to
> turn off the attributes it seems easier to just set the default.
> ---
>  gcc/config.gcc | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
> index c070e6ecd2e..52639cf26d6 100644
> --- a/gcc/config.gcc
> +++ b/gcc/config.gcc
> @@ -4596,7 +4596,7 @@ case "${target}" in
>                         tm_defines="${tm_defines} TARGET_RISCV_ATTRIBUTE=0"
>                         ;;
>                 ""|default)
> -                       tm_defines="${tm_defines} TARGET_RISCV_ATTRIBUTE=1"
> +                       tm_defines="${tm_defines} TARGET_RISCV_ATTRIBUTE=0"
>                         ;;
>                 *)
>                         echo
> "--with-riscv-attribute=${with_riscv_attribute} is not supported.  The
> argument must begin with yes, no or default." 1>&2
> --
> 2.39.1
>
>

Reply via email to