Full Article:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,344374,00.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8306
Correction, the "minimal example" no-longer fails, but the full
testsuite entry does still fail.
R.
--- Comment #8 from rearnsha at arm dot com 2010-02-08 16:30 ---
Subject: Re: [arm] Combine cannot do its job because
immediate operand is used instead of register
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 16:11 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Can someone please explain what
--- Comment #9 from rearnsha at arm dot com 2010-02-08 16:31 ---
Subject: Re: [arm] Combine cannot do its job because
immediate operand is used instead of register
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 16:30 +, rearnsha at arm dot com wrote:
> mov r1, r5, r4, lsr
||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-09-12
14:47:09 UTC ---
Fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #48 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-09-12
15:31:51 UTC ---
On 12/09/11 16:18, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> A much simpler way to fix this is to emit a barrier just prior to
> mucking around with stack pointer in the epilogue. That's h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50856
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Priority|P3
||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-10-27
16:53:07 UTC ---
So for PPC, this seems to be a lucky side-effect of the way the PPC ABI is
defined. On PPC the argument is passed by reference and the compiler generates
an initial load expression of X
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50948
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50949
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50947
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50970
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
-26 00:00:00 |2011-11-11 0:00
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-11-11
15:59:31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49641
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-11-16
17:02:52 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Nov 16 17:02:44 2011
New Revision: 181416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181416
Log:
2011-11-16 Richard Earnshaw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49641
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-11-16
17:53:31 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Nov 16 17:53:28 2011
New Revision: 181418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181418
Log:
2011-11-16 Richard Earnshaw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49641
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50493
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-11-19
13:47:40 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Sat Nov 19 13:47:35 2011
New Revision: 181508
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181508
Log:
PR target/50493
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50493
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-11-19
16:47:06 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Sat Nov 19 16:47:02 2011
New Revision: 181510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181510
Log:
PR target/50493
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50493
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-11-24
11:00:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> How strongly do you object? I think the benefits are
> worth any compatibility drawbacks in this case.
It would be a nice to have, but I'm not going to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51423
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51442
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-07
10:55:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 26010 [details]
> Only use BLKmode for volatile accesses which are not naturally aligned.
>
> Per Julian Brown's original email at
> h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51456
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51534
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51568
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51568
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-15
17:27:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> On linux sizeof (struct rec) is 7, so how do you expect an unsigned (size = 4)
> to hold the entire value?
>
> If you want a packed enum, you need to spe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-22
14:13:16 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Dec 22 14:13:09 2011
New Revision: 182621
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182621
Log:
PR target/51643
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-22
14:28:45 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Dec 22 14:28:39 2011
New Revision: 182622
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182622
Log:
PR target/51643
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-22
17:31:58 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Dec 22 17:31:50 2011
New Revision: 182628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182628
Log:
PR target/51643
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-22
17:33:04 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Dec 22 17:32:58 2011
New Revision: 182629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182629
Log:
PR target/51643
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-12-22
23:27:29 UTC ---
Because the ABI says it only works for bare metal.
On a system with shared libraries, you can't tell at static link time if a weak
symbol will be resolved by a shared library, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-01-06
16:02:49 UTC ---
I think it would be better to just generate a single insn early on and then to
split it once the loop optimizers have had a chance to run. Then the
optimizers should be able to th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51835
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-02-03 00:00:00 |2012-02-06 0:00
Component|tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52187
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-17
23:22:41 UTC ---
Confirmed.
lsls Rd, Rn, Rm
is only 2 bytes in size if Rd == Rn
Although the testcase only fails on trunk, the miscalculation is certain to be
present on all maintained branches.
|unassigned at gcc dot |rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-18
15:25:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Richard, I suppose you mean the problem is in this define_insn:
>
> (define_insn "*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-21
15:38:40 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 21 15:38:35 2012
New Revision: 184442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184442
Log:
PR target/52294
* t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-21
23:46:10 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 21 23:46:05 2012
New Revision: 184452
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184452
Log:
PR target/52294
* t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-21
23:51:21 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 21 23:51:16 2012
New Revision: 184454
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184454
Log:
PR target/52294
* t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52338
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52338
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52367
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49448
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-02-28
15:26:13 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Feb 28 15:26:02 2012
New Revision: 184626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184626
Log:
PR target/49448
* config.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-03-01
16:08:35 UTC ---
The real question is why is a cstore operation being called with constants for
the two operands in the comparison. If it knows the constants, then it knows
the result of the compar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50970
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29206
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #20 from Richard E
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52867
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52867
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-04-08
14:38:23 UTC ---
If the problem is with your installed compiler, there are a number of ways in
which you might work around the problem:
- Build stage1 with optimization enabled: STAGE1_CFLAGS
- Buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49448
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-04-12
14:11:37 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Apr 12 14:11:33 2012
New Revision: 186379
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186379
Log:
PR target/49448
* config.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49448
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-04-12
14:11:53 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Apr 12 14:11:49 2012
New Revision: 186380
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186380
Log:
PR target/49448
* config.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49448
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51178
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi, |arm-none-eabi
|arm-l
||2012-04-21
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-04-21
23:35:27 UTC ---
Try -fno-split-wide-types.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-04-27
12:25:06 UTC ---
Just for the record, I've confirmed with the Assembler Guide team that there is
a documentation fault in that document. It will be clarified in a future
release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2012-05-14
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|middle-end |target
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-05-14
09:33:46 UTC ---
The movsicc (and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53376
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-05-16
23:18:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> extern int x;
> static long long p;
> static long long *h1 ;
> static long long *h2 ;
>
> void foo (void)
> {
> int i ;
> for( i = 0 ; i < x ; i+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53376
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-05-17
12:07:23 UTC ---
No, I think we need a separate function that is allowed to say "don't do a
comparison this way"
For example some comparisons might involve libcalls.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53440
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-05-22
16:36:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Someone needs to implement the thunk functionality for arm.
The ARM port does have MI thunk support. The question is "why isn't it being
used"?
R.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53659
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnsh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16132
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38692
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14352
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16314
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47066
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47091
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-netbsd, arm-pe, |arm-netbsd
|arm-winc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47088
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43703
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43047
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54067
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-07-23
10:00:41 UTC ---
The -mapcs option isn't expected to work on AAPCS based targets. We should fix
the compiler to reject this combination.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54067
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-07-23
10:26:06 UTC ---
Hmm, I got myself confused with the undocumented option. -mapcs has the same
behaviour as -mapcs-frame, which should work (generate code that will execute
correctly) even in this c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47540
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-02-27
22:47:38 UTC ---
The opposite of -mthumb is -marm (not -mno-thumb)
||2011.02.27 22:55:05
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47535
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-02-28
17:37:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> In arm.opt, marm is marked Undocumented, and mthumb is not marked
> RejectNegative.
>
> In invoke.texi, -marm isn't mentioned except in the "ARM options"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47719
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-03-05
14:01:10 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Sat Mar 5 14:01:07 2011
New Revision: 170698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170698
Log:
PR target/47719
||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-03-05
14:09:38 UTC ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47831
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47920
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47681
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45980
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48061
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46329
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-03-10
17:00:10 UTC ---
Another test (from the dup).
int __attribute__ ((vector_size (32))) x;
void
foo (void)
{
x <<= x;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46329
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mgretton at sourceware dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48380
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48380
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-03-31
21:05:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 23843
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23843
testcase reduced from libgfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48380
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48455
Summary: Huge code size regression for all ARM configurations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48455
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2011-04-07
16:00:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 23914
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23914
first testcase
Compile with -Os -mcpu=arm7tdmi -marm -fno-short-enums -fno-builtin
1 - 100 of 1485 matches
Mail list logo
