On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:47 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Joseph S. Myers
>> <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> Hi Joseph,
>>>> I need to support InverseMask(XXX) in options without the corresponding
>>>> Mask(XXX) since XXX is never set directly via a command line option. This
>>>> patch adds a MaskNeeded property which turns InverseMask(XXX) into
>>>> the inverse version of Mask(XXX), which allocates a unique bit and defines
>>>> the same set of macros as Mask(XXX).  Does it look OK?
>>> I'd have thought that either Mask or InverseMask with a given mask name
>>> (or a standalone target mask record) should cause allocation (only once,
>>> no matter how many options use the same mask name), and MaskExists should
>>> be removed, rather than adding MaskNeeded - if I understood correctly the
>>> purpose for which you are adding MaskNeeded.
>> That is correct.  I will work on a patch to remove  MaskExists.
> Here is a patch to remove MaskExists.  The difference between the old
> options.h and the new options.h on Linux/x86-64 are
> The same set of macros are provided.  The only differences are the
> order of bits used and macro definitions.  I am doing a full bootstrap and
> test on Linux/x86-64.  OK for trunk if there are no regressions?
> I will submit a separate patch to remove MaskExists from all *.opt files after
> this patch is installed.
> Thanks.
> --
> H.J.
> ----
> 2012-03-26  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu...@intel.com>
>        * opth-gen.awk: Allocated a bit for Mask and InverseMask if it
>        hasn't been allocated.  Define a target macro for Mask and
>        InverseMask if it hasn't been defined.  Remove MaskExists
>        handling.
>        * doc/options.texi: Remove MaskNeeded.

There are no regressions on Linux/x86-64.  OK for trunk?



Reply via email to