On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 06:07:38PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 19/01/2022 07:54, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >>Okay with those changes. Thanks!
> >
> >Thanks for having a look at this. I would like to back port this patch
> >also to the GCC 10 and 11 branches.
>
> The default is to ask for
On 19/01/2022 07:54, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Okay with those changes. Thanks!
Thanks for having a look at this. I would like to back port this patch
also to the GCC 10 and 11 branches.
The default is to ask for back ports after a break. Can I back port the
patch (with the default:
On 18/01/2022 22:42, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
+default:
+ break;
Please don't do that. You can do
default:
break;
break;
/* And just to make sure: */
break;
break;
and it will do exactly the same as not having a default at all. Not
having such useless
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:51:39PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> For some CPUs, the assembler machine directive cannot be determined by ISA
> flags.
That may be the best we can do here, with the current setup, yes.
> PR 104090/target
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
For some CPUs, the assembler machine directive cannot be determined by ISA
flags.
gcc/
PR 104090/target
* config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_machine_from_flags): Use also
rtems_cpu.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 28
1 file changed, 28
