> On Oct 16, 2017, at 5:52 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> Is my patch Okay?
>
> Given it's a mid-end patch this shouldn't be marked as AArch64 specific.
> Similarly the PR needs to be updated to say middle-end. So resending
> it making it clear it's not a target bug shoul
Qing Zhao wrote:
> Is my patch Okay?
Given it's a mid-end patch this shouldn't be marked as AArch64 specific.
Similarly the PR needs to be updated to say middle-end. So resending
it making it clear it's not a target bug should help getting a review.
Wilco
On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
Thanks a lot for Wilco’s help on this bug.
Yes, Aarch64 does NOT do anything wrong.
The implementation of __builtin_update_setjmp_buf is not correct. It takes
a pointer
as an operand and treats the Mode of t
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/10/17 20:56, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot for Wilco’s help on this bug.
>>>
>>> Yes, Aarch64 does NOT do anything wrong.
>>>
>>> The implementation of
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>
> On 06/10/17 20:56, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Thanks a lot for Wilco’s help on this bug.
>>
>> Yes, Aarch64 does NOT do anything wrong.
>>
>> The implementation of __builtin_update_setjmp_buf is not correct. It takes a
>> pointe
On 06/10/17 20:56, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Thanks a lot for Wilcoâs help on this bug.
>
> Yes, Aarch64 does NOT do anything wrong.
>
> The implementation of __builtin_update_setjmp_buf is not correct. It takes a
> pointer
> as an operand and treats the Mode of the pointer as Pmode, which is not
Thanks a lot for Wilco’s help on this bug.
Yes, Aarch64 does NOT do anything wrong.
The implementation of __builtin_update_setjmp_buf is not correct. It takes a
pointer
as an operand and treats the Mode of the pointer as Pmode, which is not correct.
a conversion from ptr_mode to Pmode is need
Richard,
thanks for your review and comments.
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>
> On 25/09/17 17:35, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.h
>> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.h
>> @@ -782,7 +782,7 @@ typedef struct
>> /* Specify the machine
On 25/09/17 17:35, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi, Andreas,
>
> thanks for the comment.
>
>> GNU style is line break before the operator, not after.
>
> updated per your comment.
>
> Qing.
>
> ---
> gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c | 12 +---
> gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.h
Hi, Andreas,
thanks for the comment.
> GNU style is line break before the operator, not after.
updated per your comment.
Qing.
---
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c | 12 +---
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.h | 2 +-
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md | 6
On Sep 25 2017, Qing Zhao wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> index 6c3ef76..876e9e3 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> @@ -3693,7 +3693,9 @@ aarch64_expand_prologue (void)
>
Hi,
This patch fixes the aarch64 bug 80295
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR80295
The aarch64 backend has multiple places that miss the handling of TARGET_ILP32.
in the patch, we added correct handling of TARGET_ILP32 into aarch64 backend.
a new small testing case is added.
bootstrapped and tested on aar
12 matches
Mail list logo
