Re: [PATCH] Avoid suspicious -Wduplicate-branches warning in lto-wrapper.c (PR lto/92972)

2019-12-18 Thread Richard Biener 
On December 17, 2019 9:43:26 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek  
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie" doesn't make much sense, either we want
>to
>use big ? "-fno-PIE" : "-fno-pie", but as both mean the same thing, I
>think
>just using "-fno-pie" is good enough.  + a few formatting nits and one
>comment typo.
>
>Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

Ok. 

Richard. 

>2019-12-17  Jakub Jelinek  
>
>   PR lto/92972
>   * lto-wrapper.c (merge_and_complain): Use just "-fno-pie" instead of
>   big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie".  Formatting fixes.  Fix comment typo.
>
>--- gcc/lto-wrapper.c.jj   2019-09-11 13:36:14.057264373 +0200
>+++ gcc/lto-wrapper.c  2019-12-17 12:28:36.135056568 +0100
>@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
>   /* Merge PIC options:
>   -fPIC + -fpic = -fpic
>   -fPIC + -fno-pic = -fno-pic
>-  -fpic/-fPIC + nothin = nothing.  
>+  -fpic/-fPIC + nothing = nothing.
>It is a common mistake to mix few -fPIC compiled objects into otherwise
>  non-PIC code.  We do not want to build everything with PIC then.
> 
>@@ -438,9 +438,10 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
>  && pie_option->opt_index == OPT_fPIE;
>   (*decoded_options)[j].opt_index = big ? OPT_fPIE : OPT_fpie;
>   if (pie_option->value)
>-(*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = big ? "-fPIE" :
>"-fpie";
>+(*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0]
>+  = big ? "-fPIE" : "-fpie";
>   else
>-(*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = big ?
>"-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie";
>+(*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = "-fno-pie";
>   (*decoded_options)[j].value = pie_option->value;
>   j++;
> }
>@@ -482,7 +483,7 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
> {
>   (*decoded_options)[j].opt_index = OPT_fpie;
>   (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0]
>-   = pic_option->value ? "-fpie" : "-fno-pie";
>+= pic_option->value ? "-fpie" : "-fno-pie";
> }
>   else if (!pic_option->value)
> (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = "-fno-pie";
>
>   Jakub

[PATCH] Avoid suspicious -Wduplicate-branches warning in lto-wrapper.c (PR lto/92972)

2019-12-17 Thread Jakub Jelinek 
Hi!

big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie" doesn't make much sense, either we want to
use big ? "-fno-PIE" : "-fno-pie", but as both mean the same thing, I think
just using "-fno-pie" is good enough.  + a few formatting nits and one
comment typo.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2019-12-17  Jakub Jelinek  

PR lto/92972
* lto-wrapper.c (merge_and_complain): Use just "-fno-pie" instead of
big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie".  Formatting fixes.  Fix comment typo.

--- gcc/lto-wrapper.c.jj2019-09-11 13:36:14.057264373 +0200
+++ gcc/lto-wrapper.c   2019-12-17 12:28:36.135056568 +0100
@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
   /* Merge PIC options:
   -fPIC + -fpic = -fpic
   -fPIC + -fno-pic = -fno-pic
-  -fpic/-fPIC + nothin = nothing.  
+  -fpic/-fPIC + nothing = nothing.
  It is a common mistake to mix few -fPIC compiled objects into otherwise
  non-PIC code.  We do not want to build everything with PIC then.
 
@@ -438,9 +438,10 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
   && pie_option->opt_index == OPT_fPIE;
(*decoded_options)[j].opt_index = big ? OPT_fPIE : OPT_fpie;
if (pie_option->value)
- (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = big ? "-fPIE" : 
"-fpie";
+ (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0]
+   = big ? "-fPIE" : "-fpie";
else
- (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = big ? "-fno-pie" 
: "-fno-pie";
+ (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = "-fno-pie";
(*decoded_options)[j].value = pie_option->value;
j++;
  }
@@ -482,7 +483,7 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
  {
(*decoded_options)[j].opt_index = OPT_fpie;
(*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0]
-= pic_option->value ? "-fpie" : "-fno-pie";
+ = pic_option->value ? "-fpie" : "-fno-pie";
  }
else if (!pic_option->value)
  (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = "-fno-pie";

Jakub