On 13 January 2016 at 18:17, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 08:53 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> The problem in this PR is that we never got around to flushing out the
>> vector
>> support for transactions for anything but x86. My goal here is to make
>> this as
>>
On 01/12/2016 08:53 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
The problem in this PR is that we never got around to flushing out the vector
support for transactions for anything but x86. My goal here is to make this as
generic as possible, so that it should Just Work with existing vector support
in the
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The problem in this PR is that we never got around to flushing out the vector
> support for transactions for anything but x86. My goal here is to make this
> as
> generic as possible, so that it should Just Work with
On 12/01/16 16:53, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The problem in this PR is that we never got around to flushing out the vector
> support for transactions for anything but x86. My goal here is to make this
> as
> generic as possible, so that it should Just Work with existing vector support
> in the
The problem in this PR is that we never got around to flushing out the vector
support for transactions for anything but x86. My goal here is to make this as
generic as possible, so that it should Just Work with existing vector support
in the backend.
In addition, if I encounter other unexpected
On 12/01/16 17:16, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 12/01/16 16:53, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> The problem in this PR is that we never got around to flushing out the vector
>> support for transactions for anything but x86. My goal here is to make this
>> as
>> generic as possible, so that
On 01/12/2016 09:16 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> For normal core attributes you can use .object_arch to force the .arch
> entry recorded in the attributes to a specific value, but I'm not sure
> if you can override the .fpu directive in this way. You might have to
> experiment a bit.