On 4/11/24 10:31 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> The passed bootstrap and regtest on powerpc64le-linux. Ok for trunk?
>
> Thanks for fixing this. I guess it should go well on powerpc64-linux too,
> but since it's very late stage4 now, could you also test this on BE machine?
Will do, after making the changes suggested below.
>> +;; This option exists only to create its MASK. It is not intended for
>> users.
>> +mdo-not-use-this-option
>> +Target RejectNegative Mask(POWER8) Var(rs6000_isa_flags) WarnRemoved
>> +
>
> I can understand the given name is to avoid users to use it, but it looks
> odd, personally
> I'm inclined to mpower8 (or even mpower8-internal) even if it's more likely
> to be used but
> it's a bit more meaningful (especially we already have mpower10),
> theoretically speaking
> it's undocumented users shouldn't use it at all.
Sorry, I should have mentioned this, but I originally had it -mpower8, but given
it was an option we don't want users to use, Segher mentioned offline to give it
a name something like the above and not -mpower8. I kind of like
-mpower8-internal
now that you mention it, but I'd like Segher's input here whether he prefers
-mdo-not-use-this-option or -mpower8-internal or something else???
> And I think we want explicit "Undocumented" here, and WarnRemoved seems not
> suitable here
> since it's for some option which worked before but then wasn't supported any
> longer, but
> this one is new, may be "Warn(Don't use %qs)" instead?
Oops, yes, we want Undocumented here. Thanks for catching that!
Good idea on the Warn versus WarnRemoved.
>> +/* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power8 -mvsx -O2" } */
>
> Nit: -O2 looks useless and can be dropped?
Ok, I'll drop it.
I'll make the changes above, modulo leaving the option name unchanged until
we hear from Segher on that and report back on the LE and BE testing.
Thanks!
Peter
