On 06/06/2017 03:49 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 08:12:49PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 05/29/2017 04:29 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 65308c9d933..6cbb77a8dc4 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invok
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 08:12:49PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 05/29/2017 04:29 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>
> >>diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> >>index 65308c9d933..6cbb77a8dc4 100644
> >>--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> >>+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> >>@@ -11382,6 +1138
On 05/29/2017 04:29 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 65308c9d933..6cbb77a8dc4 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -11382,6 +11382,32 @@ of the function name, it is considered to be a match.
For C99 and C++
extend
Ping?
Richard E., this feature will immediately benefit AArch64 backend and
Linux kernel. Do you plan to review it?
Thank you.
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:35:52PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How about --fpatchable-func
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:35:52PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>
> >> How about --fpatchable-function-entry=?
> >
> I haven't reviewed it yet. I'm not really planning to spend any more
> time on this until stage1 re-opens.
So I guess this is about now? Here is version 8, which is f
