This patch is a repost of the one I previously posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00652.html
As requested, I've broken out the other parts of the original patch, and
those have already been reposted yesterday (and one committed also).
This (final) part is support for
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 12:23 +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> This patch is a repost of the one I previously posted here:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00652.html
>
> As requested, I've broken out the other parts of the original patch, and
> those have already been reposted ye
On 06/05/11 12:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
+ RETURN_SEQUENCE must be an int[4].
It would be a more robust coding style to define a struct with an int[4]
array as its only member. Then it wouldn't be possible to pass an
undersized object to these routines.
I've attached an updated patch with
On 09/05/11 17:23, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 06/05/11 12:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
OK with a change to do that.
Thanks, I can't commit this until my ADDW/SUBW patch has been committed.
There was a bug I found in final testing, so this has been delayed somewhat.
I've just committed this vers
On 26/08/11 11:03, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
There was a bug I found in final testing, so this has been delayed
somewhat.
I've just committed this version. There are a few minor changes to the
way negative/inverted constants are generated.
Bernd found another bug whist testing for arm. Apparently t
On 30/08/11 15:32, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:03, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
There was a bug I found in final testing, so this has been delayed
somewhat.
I've just committed this version. There are a few minor changes to the
way negative/inverted constants are generated.
Bernd found anothe
