On Jan 19, 2018, at 6:06 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> I'm having a lot of heartburn over this because my test machine is
> experiencing disk slowdowns, so it's taking me up to 4 hours to complete
> a bootstrap and regression test.
Ah, the joys of crosses, no bootstrap. The gcc C testsuite runs i
> On Jan 19, 2018, at 7:53 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> My recent patches to trunk and gcc-7-branch for avoiding speculation of
>> indirect branches has a flaw, pointed out by David. Usage of "." to
>> represent the program
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 08:53:52PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My recent patches to trunk and gcc-7-branch for avoiding speculation of
> > indirect branches has a flaw, pointed out by David. Usage of "." to
> > represent th
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My recent patches to trunk and gcc-7-branch for avoiding speculation of
> indirect branches has a flaw, pointed out by David. Usage of "." to
> represent the program counter is not portable across all POWER
> assemblers, particularly
> On Jan 19, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:20:23PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Jan 19 2018, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>
On Jan 19, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wr
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:20:23PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jan 19 2018, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 19, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-2.
On Jan 19 2018, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-2.c (revision
>>> 256894)
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indir
> On Jan 19, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-2.c (revision
>> 256894)
>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-2.c (working copy)
>> @@ -30,4 +
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-2.c (revision
> 256894)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-2.c (working copy)
> @@ -30,4 +30,4 @@ int foo (int x)
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler
I see that David already proposed this same patch in PR83946. Sorry, I've
gotten behind on my email.
Two changes I need: The scan-assembly should have \$ rather than $ in it, and
I should add
PR83946 to the ChangeLog.
Sorry for the noise.
-- Bill
Bill Schmidt, Ph.D.
STSM, GCC Architect for
Hi,
My recent patches to trunk and gcc-7-branch for avoiding speculation of
indirect branches has a flaw, pointed out by David. Usage of "." to
represent the program counter is not portable across all POWER
assemblers, particularly not being accepted on AIX. "$" is the
universally accepted alte
11 matches
Mail list logo