On 17 August 2012 07:29, Julian Brown <jul...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:56:52 +0100 > Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramra...@arm.com> wrote: > >> On 07/24/12 13:27, Julian Brown wrote: >> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:15:27 +0100 >> > Julian Brown <jul...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Anyway: this revised version of the patch removes the strange >> >> libgcc Makefile-fragment changes, the equivalent of which have >> >> since been incorporated into mainline GCC now anyway, so the patch >> >> is somewhat more straightforward than it was previously. >> > >> > Joey Ye contacted me offlist and suggested that the t-divmod-ef >> > fragment might be better integrated into t-bpabi instead. Doing that >> > makes the patch somewhat smaller/cleaner. >> > >> > Minimally re-tested, looks OK. >> >> The original submission makes no mention of testing ? The ARM >> specific portions look OK to me modulo no regressions. > > Thanks -- I'm sure I did test the patch, but just omitted to mention > that fact in the mail :-O. We've also been carrying a version of this > patch in our local source base for many years now.
Hi Julian. The test case fails on arm-linux-gnueabi: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-08/msg02100.html FAIL: gcc.target/arm/div64-unwinding.c execution test The test aborts as &_Unwind_RaiseException is not null. _divdi3.o itself looks fine and no longer pulls in the unwinder so I assume something else in the environment is. I've put the binaries up at http://people.linaro.org/~michaelh/incoming/div64-unwinding.exe and http://people.linaro.org/~michaelh/incoming/_divdi3.o if that helps. -- Michael
