From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C109C43387 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 12:43:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C2C520857 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 12:43:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3C2C520857 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43Rjt60YdbzDqCb for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:43:26 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=permerror (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org (client-ip=63.228.1.57; helo=gate.crashing.org; envelope-from=segher@kernel.crashing.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43Rjpm5Zn1zDqC0 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:40:32 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id wBTBeH3g022098; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 05:40:18 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id wBTBeGi7022093; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 05:40:16 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 05:40:15 -0600 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix -mcpu= options for SPE-only compiler Message-ID: <20181229114012.GB28554@gate.crashing.org> References: <20181226141511.3ag7uf6rvdgzlmxt@decadent.org.uk> <20181226234552.GA28554@gate.crashing.org> <99f1a5d8ffcb3539b653a5f123ef32735f389af4.camel@decadent.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <99f1a5d8ffcb3539b653a5f123ef32735f389af4.camel@decadent.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 02:32:07AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2018-12-26 at 17:45 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 02:15:11PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > GCC for Debian's "powerpcspe" architecture only supports 32-bit > > > SPE targets, and using -mcpu=powerpc or -mcpu=powerpc64 is a fatal > > > error. > > > > I don't see where your patch touches -mcpu=powerpc, and I don't see how > > it would make a difference either? [ I now see that error fwiw. Yuck. ] > Look at the assignments that are conditional on HAS_BIARCH. Sure, you change how HAS_BIARCH is set. That has more effects than just not using -mcpu=powerpc (which is fine, but the message is confusing). > > > +ifdef CONFIG_PPC64 > > > ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 > > > ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN > > > CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += -mcpu=power8 > > > @@ -177,6 +178,7 @@ endif > > > else > > > CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += -mcpu=powerpc64 > > > endif > > > +endif > > > > How can CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 be true while CONFIG_PPC64 is fals? That > > does not make a lot of sense. > > But there is an "else" part here. Yeah I see. It would be better to have fewer nested conditionals here instead of more... Segher