On Aug 01 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Do you know a reliable way of checking whether target can issue nops in
> simple code?
Try inspecting one of the rtl dumps.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> On Aug 01 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>> I don't see an easy way to correctly differentiate between "attribute"
>>> nops and "bundle" nops, so XFAILing these tests on ia64 seems like a
>>>
On Aug 01 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>> I don't see an easy way to correctly differentiate between "attribute"
>> nops and "bundle" nops, so XFAILing these tests on ia64 seems like a
>> valid approach.
>
> Make sense, given that the use of Itanium h
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> I don't see an easy way to correctly differentiate between "attribute"
> nops and "bundle" nops, so XFAILing these tests on ia64 seems like a
> valid approach.
Make sense, given that the use of Itanium has gone done drastically.
Gerald
On Jul 26, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> On Jul 26 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Jul 07 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>>>
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c
b/gcc/
On Jul 26 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Jul 07 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>>
>> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c
>> > b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c
>> > ne
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jul 07 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000..851
On Jul 07 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..8514b10e820
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_functi
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:12:00AM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> >
> > SuSe/Novell choose to do its assignments per engineer, not for the whole
> > company, so I don't think you are covered as is.
>
> Torsten, any update on which way you are going to handle copyright assignment
> -- apply for
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:12:00AM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>
> I confirmed that bootstrap and reg test on x86_64-linux-gnu and
> aarch64-linux-gnu are OK.
Thanks a lot!
> Torsten, any update on which way you are going to handle copyright assignment
> -- apply for a new one or have one of
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:58:06PM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commi
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:58:06PM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>>>
>>> What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commit that patch?
>>
>> Torsten, if you prefer I can commit your p
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:58:06PM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> >
> > What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commit that patch?
>
> Torsten, if you prefer I can commit your patch (after bootstrap and a regtest
> on aarch64-linux-gnu
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>
> What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commit that patch?
>
> Torsten
>
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 02:57:55PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 06/07/17 15:03, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>> +#if TARGET_HAVE_NAMED_SECTIONS
>
What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commit that patch?
Torsten
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 02:57:55PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/07/17 15:03, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> +#if TARGET_HAVE_NAMED_SECTIONS
No, this is a hook. You need to test targetm_common.have_named_s
Change since v11:
< +#if TARGET_HAVE_NAMED_SECTIONS
> + if (record_p && targetm_common.have_named_sections)
(plus > +#include "common/common-target.h" )
Torsten
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog
2017-07-07 Torsten Duwe
* c-attribs.c (c_common_attribute_table): Add entry for
16 matches
Mail list logo