Hello, everyone.
Our "Arm64 on Windows Ecosystem" team is currently working on adding
aarch64-w64-mingw32 target and we've noticed that recent commit adding SME
support (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2023-December/394915.html) is
using .hidden and .size pseudo-ops that are not sup
Hello.
I forgot to add the target maintainers to the CC. My apologies for that.
Furthermore, I am adding also relevant changes in `libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S`
file to the patch. Originally we wanted to submit those changes separately but
after the feedback from Andrew Pinski, it makes sense to
On 1/9/24 19:37, Radek Barton wrote:
Hello.
I forgot to add the target maintainers to the CC. My apologies for that.
Furthermore, I am adding also relevant changes in `libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S`
file to the patch. Originally we wanted to submit those changes separately but
after the feedbac
> On 10 Jan 2024, at 08:49, Jonathan Yong <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/9/24 19:37, Radek Barton wrote:
>> Hello.
>> I forgot to add the target maintainers to the CC. My apologies for that.
>> Furthermore, I am adding also relevant changes in
>> `libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S` file to the
> On 10 Jan 2024, at 09:02, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2024, at 08:49, Jonathan Yong <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/9/24 19:37, Radek Barton wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>> I forgot to add the target maintainers to the CC. My apologies for that.
>>> Furthermore, I am adding also relevant ch
Radek Barton writes:
> Hello.
>
> I forgot to add the target maintainers to the CC. My apologies for that.
>
> Furthermore, I am adding also relevant changes in
> `libgcc/config/aarch64/lse.S` file to the patch. Originally we wanted to
> submit those changes separately but after the feedback fro
Hello Richard.
Thank you for your suggestion. I am sending a patch update according to it.
> How about avoiding the clash by using the names HIDDEN, SYMBOL_TYPE and
> SYMBOL_SIZE, with SYMBOL_TYPE taking the symbol type as argument?
Yes, unless the symbol is explicitly exported using `__declspec
Wrong attachment, sorry.
v4-0001-Ifdef-.hidden-.type-and-.size-pseudo-ops-for-aarc.patch
Description: v4-0001-Ifdef-.hidden-.type-and-.size-pseudo-ops-for-aarc.patch
Are there any further comments or suggestions, please? What needs to be done to
merge this change? (Note we don't have merge rights).
Thank you.
Radek
Radek Barton writes:
> Hello Richard.
>
> Thank you for your suggestion. I am sending a patch update according to it.
>
>> How about avoiding the clash by using the names HIDDEN, SYMBOL_TYPE and
>> SYMBOL_SIZE, with SYMBOL_TYPE taking the symbol type as argument?
>
> Yes, unless the symbol is expl
The 01/15/2024 17:21, Radek Barton wrote:
v4-0001-Ifdef-.hidden-.type-and-.size-pseudo-ops-for-aarc.patch
Description: v4-0001-Ifdef-.hidden-.type-and-.size-pseudo-ops-for-aarc.patch
this patch added double notes on crt*.o and lse derived objects.
(which does not seem to cause build break but some linkers may
not like it)
after #include "aarch64-asm.h" all gnu-stack and gnu-property
related stuff should be removed since the header takes care of it.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 5:51 AM Radek Barton wrote:
>
> Hello, everyone.
>
>
> Our "Arm64 on Windows Ecosystem" team is currently working on adding
> aarch64-w64-mingw32 target and we've noticed that recent commit adding SME
> support (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2023-December/394915.ht
Originally we've used `!__MINGW64__` but changed it to `__ELF__` upon feedback
received. Should I change it back to `!__MINGW64__`? Or introduce '__COFF__'
and then use `!__COFF__`? What would be the minimal acceptable change? we are
currently probably not able to provide that generic solution a
ski (QUIC)
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fw: [RFC] Either fix or disable SME feature for
`aarch64-w64-mingw32` target?
[You don't often get email from pins...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
On Thu, Jan 4, 2
15 matches
Mail list logo
