On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>> Ingo, Thomas and Linus,
>>>>
>>>> I know Thomas did a patch to force the -mtune=generic, but just in case
>>>> gcc decides to do something crazy again, this patch will catch it.
>>>>
>>>> Should we try to get this in now?
>>> I'm sure this makes sense, but a gcc test case would be even better.
>>> If this can be detected in the gcc test suite it'll be found and
>>> fixed long before y'all in kernel land get to see it. That's the
>>> only way to guarantee this never bothers you again.
>>>
>>> H.J., who wrote the code in question, is hopefully looking at why
>>> this odd code is being generated. Once he's done I can put a
>>> suitable test case in the gcc test suite.
>>>
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42109#c7
>
> I saw that, but does it mean you're going to investigate? There is
> no obvious reason why -mtune=generic should affect code generation
> in this way, but it does.
>
Why not, there is
static const unsigned int x86_accumulate_outgoing_args
= m_AMD_MULTIPLE | m_ATOM | m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_PPRO | m_CORE2
| m_GENERIC;
-mtune=generic turns on -maccumulate-outgoing-args.
--
H.J.
