On 23 November 2011 23:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
> This transformation is quite a bit more dramatic than the other ports because
> ARM was not splitting the code sequences post-reload. Indeed, the failure to
> split resulted in a distinctly odd coding style where fake output routines
> were
On 11 November 2011 23:32, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw
> Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> ---
> gcc/config/arm/arm.c | 4
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> index 6ef6f62..abf8ce1 100644
> --- a
(Sorry, repost - I'd meant to cc Mike and Rainer into the
conversation, but forgot to
add them).
On 3 October 2011 13:53, David Gilbert wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 14:21, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>>
>> The nit-picky bit - There are still
On 3 October 2011 09:35, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 09/30/2011 08:54 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 July 2011 10:01, Dr. David Alan Gilbert
>>> wrote:
+
+extern unsigned int __write(int fd, const void *buf, unsigned int co
On 30 September 2011 18:01, H.J. Lu wrote:
> You may want to look a look at:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
>
> ARM may have the same problem.
OK - although to be honest this patch only stretches the same
structures to 64bit - any major changes in semantics are a separate i
On 30 September 2011 14:21, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
>
> The nit-picky bit - There are still a number of formatting issues with
> your patch . Could you run your patch through
> contrib/check_GNU_style.sh and correct these. These are typically
> around problems with the number of s
On 9 August 2011 11:30, David Gilbert wrote:
> Other than Ramana's comment about my comment on 4/4, has anyone else got any
> other input? Otherwise I'd like to fix that comment and then get it in.
We now have comments from Ramana on patches 3/4 and 4/4 - anyone for
anything
Other than Ramana's comment about my comment on 4/4, has anyone else got any
other input? Otherwise I'd like to fix that comment and then get it in.
Dave
On 26 July 2011 09:59, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> Hi,
> This is V2 of a series of 4 patches relating to ARM atomic operations;
> they i
On 12 July 2011 22:07, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
Hi Ramana,
Thanks for the review.
> Could you split this further into a patch that deals with the
> case for disabling MCR memory barriers for Thumb1 so that it
> maybe backported to the release branches ? I have commented inline
>
On 1 July 2011 20:38, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your comments.
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>
>> +/* For write */
>> +#include
>> +/* For abort */
>> +#include
>
> Please don't include system headers in libgcc without appropriate
> inhibit_libc check
On 1 July 2011 17:03, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 08:55 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> +/* Check that the kernel has a new enough version at load */
>> +void __check_for_sync8_kernelhelper (void)
>> +{
>> + if (__kernel_helper_version < 5)
>> + {
>> + const char err[] =
On 29 June 2011 14:43, Rainer Orth wrote:
> -/* { dg-output "PR libffi/46660" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } */
> +/* { dg-output "" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } PR libffi/46660 */
Do you fancy adding the appropriate MIPS fix on top of the libffi varargs patch
I posted a few months back - then it cou
12 matches
Mail list logo
