on 2024/4/9 11:20, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 4/8/24 9:37 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2024/4/8 21:21, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> I prefer to remove it completely, that is:
>>
>>> -mdirect-move
>>> -Target Undocumented Mask(DIRECT_MOVE) Var(rs6000_isa_flags) WarnRemoved
>>
>> The reason why you still kept it is to keep a historical record here?
>
> I believe we've never completely removed an option before. I think the
By checking the history, we did remove some options for SPE, paired single,
xilinx-fpu etc., which can be taken as gone with feature removal, but also
-maltivec={le,be} and -misel={yes,no}.
> thought was, if some software package explicitly used the option, then
> they shouldn't see an 'unrecognized command-line option' error, but
> rather either a warning that the option was removed or just silently
> ignore it. Ie, we don't want to make a package that used to build with
> an old compiler now break its build because the option doesn't exist
> anymore.
I understand, but an argument is that no errors (even no warnings) can imply
some option still takes effect and cause some misunderstanding easily. For
the release in which we remove the support of an option, we can still mark
it as WarnRemoved, but after a release or so, users should be aware of this
change and modify their build scripts if need, it's better to emit errors
for them to avoid the false appearance that it's still supported.
>
>> Segher pointed out to me that this kind of option complete removal should be
>> stage 1 stuff, so let's defer to make it in a separated patch next release
>> (including some other options like mfpgpr you showed below etc.). :)
>
> If we're going to completely remove it, then for sure, it's a stage1 thing.
> I'd like to hear Segher's thoughts on whether we should completely remove
> it or just silently ignore it.
>
>
>
>> For the original patch,
>>
>>> +mno-direct-move
>>> +Target Undocumented WarnRemoved
>>
>> s/WarnRemoved/Ignore/ to match some other existing practice, there is no
>> warning now if specifying -mno-direct-move and it would be good to keep
>> the same behavior for users.
>
> If we want to silently ignore -mdirect-move and -mno-direct-move, then we
> just need to do:
>
> mdirect-move
> -Target Undocumented Mask(DIRECT_MOVE) Var(rs6000_isa_flags) WarnRemoved
> +Target Undocumented Ignore
>
Since removing it completely is a stage1 thing, I prefer to keep mdirect-move
and -mno-direct-move handlings as before, WarnRemoved and Ignore separately.
> There's no need to mention -mno-direct-move at all then. It was only in the
> case I thought we wanted to warn against it's use that I added
> -mno-direct-move.
>
>
Not to mention it is fine too, just keep the handlings and defer it to stage 1.
:)
BR,
Kewen
