http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #13 from clm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-13 15:38:37 UTC ---
Author: clm
Date: Wed Mar 13 15:37:36 2013
New Revision: 196635
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196635
Log:
2013-03-13 Catherine Moore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-09 07:54:08 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sat Mar 9 07:54:02 2013
New Revision: 196570
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196570
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-07 15:56:19
UTC ---
I included the patch in my nightly build and test and encountered no problems
with GCC or GLIBC. I was able to completely build GLIBC in mips16 mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-07 18:40:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I don't like the patch too much. Why are you removing the cfun-optabs stuff?
Because Aldy says, it's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-07
19:02:14 UTC ---
It didn't seem to be too confusing and would require only a few extra lines of
code (that have been written already).
Anyway, I guess I don't care much,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-07 19:13:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
It didn't seem to be too confusing and would require only a few extra lines of
code (that have been written
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
17:54:41 UTC ---
This is ICEing here:
/* ?? If this fails, we should temporarily restore the default
target first (set_cfun (NULL) ??), do the rest of this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-06 20:59:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 29601
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29601
Tentative patch
How about this patch? Only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
23:01:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Created attachment 29601 [details]
Tentative patch
How about this patch? Only lightly tested. It fixes the testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-05
16:24:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 29588
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29588
reduced testcase
13 matches
Mail list logo
