This patch allows padding to be specified per-target for libcalls. This
hasn't been traditionally important, because libcalls haven't accepted
quantities which might need padding, but that's no longer true with the
new(-ish) fixed-point support helper functions.
Tested (alongside other fixed-point
On 26/05/11 17:56, Julian Brown wrote:
> This patch allows padding to be specified per-target for libcalls. This
> hasn't been traditionally important, because libcalls haven't accepted
> quantities which might need padding, but that's no longer true with the
> new(-ish) fixed-point support helper
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Julian Brown wrote:
> This patch allows padding to be specified per-target for libcalls. This
> hasn't been traditionally important, because libcalls haven't accepted
> quantities which might need padding, but that's no longer true with the
> new(-ish) fixed-point
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Julian Brown wrote:
>> This patch allows padding to be specified per-target for libcalls. This
>> hasn't been traditionally important, because libcalls haven't accepted
>> quantities which might need padding, but th
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:51 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Julian Brown
>> wrote:
>>> This patch allows padding to be specified per-target for libcalls. This
>>> hasn't been traditionally important, because libcalls haven'
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 06:54:54 -0700
"H.J. Lu" wrote:
> >> This breaks bootstrap on Linux/x86:
> I checked it in as an obvious fix.
Sorry about that, and thank you!
Cheers,
Julian
Hi Julian,
Julian Brown writes:
> This patch allows padding to be specified per-target for libcalls. This
> hasn't been traditionally important, because libcalls haven't accepted
> quantities which might need padding, but that's no longer true with the
> new(-ish) fixed-point support helper funct
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch caused several regressions on big-endian 64-bit MIPS targets,
> which now try to shift single-precision floating-point arguments to
> the top of an FPR. The calls.c part...
I reported this as bug #50113 as it is breaking boot
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 18:47:57 +0100
Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch caused several regressions on big-endian 64-bit MIPS
> targets, which now try to shift single-precision floating-point
> arguments to the top of an FPR. [...]
Sorry for the breakage!
> The patch below borrows the padding
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:04:55 +0100
Julian Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 18:47:57 +0100
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > This patch caused several regressions on big-endian 64-bit MIPS
> > targets, which now try to shift single-precision floating-point
> > arguments to the top of an FPR. [
10 matches
Mail list logo