On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > On August 26, 2017 12:51:57 AM GMT+02:00, Joseph Myers
> > > wrote:
> > > >I'm seeing a build failure for s390x-linux-gnu that looks like it could
> >
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On August 26, 2017 12:51:57 AM GMT+02:00, Joseph Myers
> > wrote:
> > >I'm seeing a build failure for s390x-linux-gnu that looks like it could
> > >be
> > >related to this change (build was OK at r25133
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> On August 26, 2017 12:51:57 AM GMT+02:00, Joseph Myers
> wrote:
> >I'm seeing a build failure for s390x-linux-gnu that looks like it could
> >be
> >related to this change (build was OK at r251332, failed at r251358).
>
> Can you please open a bug? C
On August 26, 2017 12:51:57 AM GMT+02:00, Joseph Myers
wrote:
>I'm seeing a build failure for s390x-linux-gnu that looks like it could
>be
>related to this change (build was OK at r251332, failed at r251358).
Can you please open a bug? Can you confirm it fails the same way before the
patch if
I'm seeing a build failure for s390x-linux-gnu that looks like it could be
related to this change (build was OK at r251332, failed at r251358).
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-testresults/2017-q3/msg00329.html
In file included from /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/gcc/libitm/libitm_i.h:39:0,
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>> > /* If th
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>> > /* If the machine does not have a case insn that compares the bounds,
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> > /* If the machine does not have a case insn that compares the bounds,
> >>> > Index: gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> >>> >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> > /* If the machine does not have a case insn that compares the bounds,
>>> > Index: gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>>> > ===
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > /* If the machine does not have a case insn that compares the bounds,
> >> > Index: gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> >> > ===
> >> > --
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > /* If the machine does not have a case insn that compares the bounds,
>> > Index: gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>> > ===
>> > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.c (revision 251275)
>>
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> > On August 22, 2017 6:38:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> > On August 22, 2017 6:38:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)"
>> > wrote:
>> > >On 22/08/17 13:55, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> > >> Hi R
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On August 22, 2017 6:38:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)"
> > wrote:
> > >On 22/08/17 13:55, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > >> Hi Richard,
> > >> [roping in more aarch64 maintainers]
> > >>
> > >
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> On August 22, 2017 6:38:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)"
> wrote:
> >On 22/08/17 13:55, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >> Hi Richard,
> >> [roping in more aarch64 maintainers]
> >>
> >> On 22/08/17 13:27, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 22 Au
On August 22, 2017 6:38:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)"
wrote:
>On 22/08/17 13:55, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> [roping in more aarch64 maintainers]
>>
>> On 22/08/17 13:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at
On 22/08/17 13:55, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> [roping in more aarch64 maintainers]
>
> On 22/08/17 13:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
The following patch fixes PR81921 (and LTO
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:27:28PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Thanks. Of course this was copied by other targets (and the x86
> one maybe from the default). So the following is an extended patch.
>
> Ok for the rs6000 and aarch64 bits?
Sure, rs6000 part is fine. Thanks!
Segher
>
Hi Richard,
[roping in more aarch64 maintainers]
On 22/08/17 13:27, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
The following patch fixes PR81921 (and LTO build of libgo) which I ran
into when trying to enable free-lan
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > The following patch fixes PR81921 (and LTO build of libgo) which I ran
> > into when trying to enable free-lang-data for non-LTO compiles.
> >
> > free-lang-data forces a DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIF
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following patch fixes PR81921 (and LTO build of libgo) which I ran
> into when trying to enable free-lang-data for non-LTO compiles.
>
> free-lang-data forces a DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_TARGET for all functions
> so we have them ending
The following patch fixes PR81921 (and LTO build of libgo) which I ran
into when trying to enable free-lang-data for non-LTO compiles.
free-lang-data forces a DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_TARGET for all functions
so we have them ending up with target_option_default_node eventually
which is something ix
24 matches
Mail list logo
