[Bug target/97281] Mark -march=x86-64-v[234] binaries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97281 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed by r11-5634: commit 54967b02c192f893e0f23481c865dd8abcb74018 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Mon Nov 9 09:29:23 2020 -0800 x86: Add -mneeded for GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_V[234] marker
[Bug target/97281] Mark -march=x86-64-v[234] binaries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97281 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2020-10-05 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > I'm not convinced it is a good idea. > What if only some TUs or even only some functions are compiled that way and > the app uses cpuid or cpuid based mechanisms to determine whether such code > can or can't be called? With glibc-hwcaps change: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-October/118184.html shared libraries under subdirectories compiled with -march=x86-64-v[234] have no CPUID check. A command-line option to mark these libraries informs people that these libraries can only run on processors with proper x86-64 ISA level support.
[Bug target/97281] Mark -march=x86-64-v[234] binaries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97281 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- I'm not convinced it is a good idea. What if only some TUs or even only some functions are compiled that way and the app uses cpuid or cpuid based mechanisms to determine whether such code can or can't be called?
