Hi,
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:29:38AM +1300, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> Hi Steve. I'd like to hand the rest of this over to you if that's OK.
>>
>> Yep, we can take
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Hope
>>> wrote:
In general the product should move forward and drop work-ar
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Hope
>> wrote:
>>> In general the product should move forward and drop work-arounds like
>>> -mimplicit-it. We (the greater ARM community) sho
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
[...]
> I hope there is at least a validation of the IT instructions by the
> assembler with regards to the condition codes on the following
> instructions (and vice versa) to make sure they are all coherent, and
> even so for ARM mode c
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Dave Martin wrote:
> So I've now come round to the view that we _should_ probably bite the
> bullet and fix the inline asm directly. So:
>
>* We need to verify which binutils permit (and ignore) the IT
> instructions in non-unified (ARM) syntax. I've observed that 2.19.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
>> In general the product should move forward and drop work-arounds like
>> -mimplicit-it. We (the greater ARM community) should fix these
>> package problems as they are found. Here's a
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> In general the product should move forward and drop work-arounds like
> -mimplicit-it. We (the greater ARM community) should fix these
> package problems as they are found. Here's a bunch of quick-fire
> statements:
>
> * Qt is currently br
In general the product should move forward and drop work-arounds like
-mimplicit-it. We (the greater ARM community) should fix these
package problems as they are found. Here's a bunch of quick-fire
statements:
* Qt is currently broken on ARM multiprocessor systems
* Qt provides a QAtomic class
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz
wrote:
> Dnia piątek, 12 listopada 2010 o 18:33:03 Dave Martin napisał(a):
>
>> * -mimplicit-it is already required by the Linux kernel and
>> possible other projects.
>
> Qt and KDE4 require -mimplicit-it=thumb too. It is disabled in Ubuntu gc
On 13.11.2010 08:20, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
Dnia piątek, 12 listopada 2010 o 18:33:03 Dave Martin napisał(a):
* -mimplicit-it is already required by the Linux kernel and
possible other projects.
Qt and KDE4 require -mimplicit-it=thumb too. It is disabled in Ubuntu gcc-4.5
and as a resul
Dnia piątek, 12 listopada 2010 o 18:33:03 Dave Martin napisał(a):
> * -mimplicit-it is already required by the Linux kernel and
> possible other projects.
Qt and KDE4 require -mimplicit-it=thumb too. It is disabled in Ubuntu gcc-4.5
and as a result it does not build on armel without setting it
Hi Richard,
Recapping on this earlier conversation:
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-toolchain/2010-July/30.html
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-toolchain/2010-July/35.html
Is it worth another attempt to make a case to upstream for supporting
passing -mimplicit-it=thumb
12 matches
Mail list logo
