Hi!
On 2022-11-04T10:04:59+0100, wrote:
> On 2022-10-12T11:21:19+0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 10/10/22 16:19, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>> attached
>>> "Restore default 'sorry' 'TARGET_ASM_CONSTRUCTOR', 'TARGET_ASM_DESTRUCTOR'".
>
>> Thanks for the fix, really appreciated!
>
> Pushed to master
Hi!
On 2022-10-12T11:21:19+0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 10/10/22 16:19, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> attached
>> "Restore default 'sorry' 'TARGET_ASM_CONSTRUCTOR', 'TARGET_ASM_DESTRUCTOR'".
> Thanks for the fix, really appreciated!
Pushed to master branch commit
On 10/10/22 16:19, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2022-09-01T12:05:23+0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>>
>> I've also built all cross compilers.
>
> First: thanks for that: clean up plus "built all cross compilers"!
>
>
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 4:23 PM Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> On 10/10/22 16:19, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > With that, OK to push?
>
> FWIW, nvptx change looks in the obvious category to me.
Can you rename the functions as default_asm_out_* and instead of
reviving dbxout.cc
put them into targhooks.cc?
On 10/10/22 16:19, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
With that, OK to push?
FWIW, nvptx change looks in the obvious category to me.
Thanks,
- Tom
Hi!
On 2022-09-01T12:05:23+0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> I've also built all cross compilers.
First: thanks for that: clean up plus "built all cross compilers"!
But yet, I've now tracked down an issue related to these
