On 16/01/14 18:40, Charles Baylis wrote:
On 20 December 2013 13:26, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 19/12/13 17:40, Charles Baylis wrote:
Is it ok for 4.8, and should it be considered for 4.7?
Yes, provided it passes testing on those releases.
Results of testing 4.8:
All 3
Committed on Charlies' behalf as:
r206706 for the 4.8 branch
r206707 for the 4.7 branch
Christophe.
On 17 January 2014 10:28, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 16/01/14 18:40, Charles Baylis wrote:
On 20 December 2013 13:26, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 19/12/13
On 20 December 2013 13:26, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 19/12/13 17:40, Charles Baylis wrote:
Is it ok for 4.8, and should it be considered for 4.7?
Yes, provided it passes testing on those releases.
Results of testing 4.8:
All 3 patches:
On 19/12/13 17:40, Charles Baylis wrote:
On 19 December 2013 16:13, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
OK with that change.
Thanks.
The bugzilla entry is targeted at 4.8, but it is a latent problem
which affects 4.7 too.
Is it ok for 4.8, and should it be considered for 4.7?
On 19/12/13 15:38, Charles Baylis wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25:50AM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I've just spotted another problem (that was always there):
@@ -42,15 +42,15 @@
(define_insn *thumb_ldm4_ia
[(match_parallel 0 load_multiple_operation
-[(set (match_operand:SI
On 19 December 2013 16:13, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
OK with that change.
Thanks.
The bugzilla entry is targeted at 4.8, but it is a latent problem
which affects 4.7 too.
Is it ok for 4.8, and should it be considered for 4.7?
