On 20 December 2013 13:26, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 19/12/13 17:40, Charles Baylis wrote:
>> Is it ok for 4.8, and should it be considered for 4.7?
>>
>
> Yes, provided it passes testing on those releases.
Results of testing 4.8:
All 3 patches:
0001-PR-target-59142-vfp_hard_register_operand.patch
0002-PR-target-59142-arm_hard_general_register_operand.patch
0003-PR-target-59142-low_register_operand.patch
apply correctly, and I have verified that ldmstm.md is correctly
patched and does not need to be regenerated and have tested that the
compiler bootstraps and passes make check in a arm-linux-gnueabihf
configuration on a chromebook.
Results of testing 4.7:
Only the following 2 patches should be applied as patch 0001 modifies
a pattern which does not exist on the 4.7 branch.
0002-PR-target-59142-arm_hard_general_register_operand.patch
0003-PR-target-59142-low_register_operand.patch
I have verified that ldmstm.md is correctly patched and does not need
to be regenerated and have tested that the compiler bootstraps in a
arm-linux-gnueabi configuration on a chromebook.
I think this is OK to be committed to both branches?
