Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-17 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Joseph S. Myers >> wrote: >> > On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > >> >> HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT isn't defined in target library. >> >> I need to check if HOST_B

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-17 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Joseph S. Myers > wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > >> HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT isn't defined in target library. > >> I need to check if HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT is defined > >> first.  Here is the updated patch

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-17 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT isn't defined in target library. >> I need to check if HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT is defined >> first.  Here is the updated patch. > > As I said in

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-17 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT isn't defined in target library. > I need to check if HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT is defined > first. Here is the updated patch. As I said in , you need to check all CLVC_* uses for cases tha

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-16 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Joseph S. Myers > wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > >> Is this OK for trunk? > > > > No.  You don't need to ping so often; I'll look at it in due course once > > sufficient time has passed since the last post

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-16 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> Is this OK for trunk? > > No.  You don't need to ping so often; I'll look at it in due course once > sufficient time has passed since the last posted revision (if a patch > keeps getting new versions p

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-09 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> Is this OK for trunk? > > No.  You don't need to ping so often; I'll look at it in due course once > sufficient time has passed since the last posted revision (if a patch > keeps getting new versions p

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-09 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: > Is this OK for trunk? No. You don't need to ping so often; I'll look at it in due course once sufficient time has passed since the last posted revision (if a patch keeps getting new versions posted, I consider that evidence that I should wait a while befor

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-09 Thread H.J. Lu
Is this OK for trunk? On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Ping.  AVX2 support depends on this patch. >> > >>> --- >>> 2011-08-04  H.J. Lu   >>>            Igor Zamyatin >>> >>>        * hwint.h (HOST_WIDE_INT_1): New. >>> >>>      

Re: PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-07 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > Ping.  AVX2 support depends on this patch. > > Thanks. > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers >>> wrote: On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, H

PING: PATCH: Use int64 for x86 options

2011-08-06 Thread H.J. Lu
Ping. AVX2 support depends on this patch. Thanks. On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers >> wrote: >>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> Here is the updated patch to get prop