> If so is the backport OK for 4.8?
I am happy for it to go to 4.8 provided it's tested on 4.8 and the
release managers don't object.
Ramana
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
> --
> Matthew Gretton-Dann
> Toolchain Working Group, Linaro
At 2013-04-30 18:45:42,"Matthew Gretton-Dann"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/04/13 06:28, Xinyu Qi wrote:
> > At 2013-04-02 17:50:03,"Ramana Radhakrishnan"
> wrote:
> >> On 04/02/13 10:40, Xinyu Qi wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> According to Vladimir Makarov's analysis, the root cause of PR
> target/54338
Hi,
On 08/04/13 06:28, Xinyu Qi wrote:
At 2013-04-02 17:50:03,"Ramana Radhakrishnan" wrote:
On 04/02/13 10:40, Xinyu Qi wrote:
Hi,
According to Vladimir Makarov's analysis, the root cause of PR target/54338
is that ALL_REGS doesn't contain IWMMXT_GR_REGS in REG_CLASS_CONTENTS.
It see
ChangeLog
2013-04-02 Xinyu Qi
PR target/54338
* config/arm/arm.h (REG_CLASS_CONTENTS): Include IWMMXT_GR_REGS in
ALL_REGS.
Thanks,
Xinyu
Thanks now applied to trunk.
For the future please consider creating patches at the top level
directory. Makes it easier for applic
At 2013-04-02 17:50:03,"Ramana Radhakrishnan" wrote:
>On 04/02/13 10:40, Xinyu Qi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>According to Vladimir Makarov's analysis, the root cause of PR
>> target/54338 is that ALL_REGS doesn't contain IWMMXT_GR_REGS in
>> REG_CLASS_CONTENTS.
>>It seems there is no reason to excl
On 04/02/13 10:40, Xinyu Qi wrote:
Hi,
According to Vladimir Makarov's analysis, the root cause of PR target/54338
is that ALL_REGS doesn't contain IWMMXT_GR_REGS in REG_CLASS_CONTENTS.
It seems there is no reason to exclude the IWMMXT_GR_REGS from ALL_REGS as
IWMMXT_GR_REGS are the real
Hi,
According to Vladimir Makarov's analysis, the root cause of PR target/54338
is that ALL_REGS doesn't contain IWMMXT_GR_REGS in REG_CLASS_CONTENTS.
It seems there is no reason to exclude the IWMMXT_GR_REGS from ALL_REGS as
IWMMXT_GR_REGS are the real registers.
This patch simply makes AL
