What about overloading the existing option -mbionic ? -mbionic=21 and
above enable ifunc (so NDK can help enforce it)
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:51 AM, enh e...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/14 10:46, enh wrote:
This feels like
Bionic prior to Gingerbread doesn't support sincos*, but upstream GCC
enables sincos optimization for OPTION_BIONIC unconditionally since
4.6. I'd like to propose a new flag -foptimize-sincos for NDK to
maintain backward compatibility.
1. For BIONIC: sincos optimization is disabled by default.
Sure. Put back Init(SSP_TLS) and rebase to r197955.
If no further feedback, please merge.
2013-04-15 Andrew Hsieh andrewhsieh.google.com
* config/i386/i386.opt: New option mstack-protector-guard=.
* config/i386/i386-opts.h: Add enum stack_protector_guard.
* config/i386
compiler released in NDK r8d and later.
2013-04-12 Andrew Hsieh andrewhsieh.google.com
* config/i386/i386.opt: New option mstack-protector-guard=.
* config/i386/i386-opts.h: Add enum stack_protector_guard.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Default
Introduced TARGET_SSP_GLOBAL_GUARD and TARGET_SSP_TLS_GUARD as suggested.
As for handling default in ix86_option_override_internal, is it
possible to achieve the same default to SSP_GLOBAL if bionic
entirely in i386.opt?
===
2013-04-12 Andrew Hsieh andrewhsieh.google.com
* config/i386
Changed comment, corrected formatting, and removed Init(SSP_TLS). Thanks!
=
2013-04-12 Andrew Hsieh andrewhsieh.google.com
* config/i386/i386.opt: New option mstack-protector-guard=.
* config/i386/i386-opts.h: Add enum stack_protector_guard.
* config/i386/i386.h
.
Used to be okay with C but no good in 4.8+ since C++ becomes
implementation language.
What is the best way to deal with it?
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Hsieh andrewhs...@google.com wrote:
Changed comment, corrected formatting, and removed Init(SSP_TLS). Thanks!
=
2013-04-12
