From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:25:43 +0200
> thanks for the update, tested with the 4.3 branch 20080509 with no
> regressions.
Thanks for testing, I've checked the bug fix into mainline.
> could this patch be considered for the 4.3 branch as
> well?
I'm perso
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:33:23 +0200
> Building GCC-4.3 with this patch (compared to the patch previously
> used by debian [1]), I get differing symbol versions for the Debian build
> on sparc in libgcc1. Both builds are configured --with-long-double-128.
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:33:23 +0200
> Building GCC-4.3 with this patch (compared to the patch previously
> used by debian [1]), I get differing symbol versions for the Debian build
> on sparc in libgcc1. Both builds are configured --with-long-double-128.
This patch rolls up some issues with sparc*-*-linux* configurations
I've wanted to cure for years. The biggest two problems were:
1) Lack of use of config/linux.h, resulting in chronic problems
because config/sparc/linux{,64}.h was not updated or updated
incorrectly.
2) Distributions patc
I think the reporter's interpreation of the assembler
code is incorrect.
If the branch to ".LL9" is taken, the load which initializes
"%g3" is executed.
The annulment of the load only occurs if the branch is not taken,
and for this snippet of code when the branch is not taken the
".LL9" label is
5 matches
Mail list logo
