On 11/24/15 00:01, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/23/2015 01:54 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 11/23/15 15:41, Jeff Law wrote:
In the 'put' function, why not just make all targets go through
putchar? It's not like this is performance critical code and I
don't think it compromises any of the tests, does
Hi!
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:16:12 -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> The gcc.dg/sso tests gratuitously fail on PTX because they use IO facilities
> that don't exist there. This patch changes the dumping to use the putchar
> function call (and not a macro), and not use fputs.
> void put (const ch
On 11/23/2015 01:54 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 11/23/15 15:41, Jeff Law wrote:
In the 'put' function, why not just make all targets go through
putchar? It's not like this is performance critical code and I
don't think it compromises any of the tests, does it?
I contemplated that, but wond
On 11/23/15 15:41, Jeff Law wrote:
In the 'put' function, why not just make all targets go through putchar? It's
not like this is performance critical code and I don't think it compromises any
of the tests, does it?
I contemplated that, but wondered if someone would complain. I'm happy eith
On 11/23/2015 01:16 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
The gcc.dg/sso tests gratuitously fail on PTX because they use IO
facilities that don't exist there. This patch changes the dumping to
use the putchar function call (and not a macro), and not use fputs.
With this they all pass.
I'm not quite sure
The gcc.dg/sso tests gratuitously fail on PTX because they use IO facilities
that don't exist there. This patch changes the dumping to use the putchar
function call (and not a macro), and not use fputs.
With this they all pass.
I'm not quite sure where the maintainer boundaries lie for this