http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04
18:32:26 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Oct 4 18:32:20 2012
New Revision: 192097
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192097
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #13 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-02
22:43:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Kaz, would it be OK to remove the whole function 'sh_option_init_struct' from
gcc/common/sh/sh-common.c ?
Definitely.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-02
23:18:11 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Sep 2 23:18:08 2012
New Revision: 190865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190865
Log:
PR target/33135
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-22 23:44:49
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Jul 22 23:44:45 2012
New Revision: 189761
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189761
Log:
PR target/33135
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-22
23:50:00 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Jul 22 23:49:56 2012
New Revision: 189762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189762
Log:
PR target/33135
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-18 07:49:56
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Jul 18 07:49:50 2012
New Revision: 189602
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189602
Log:
PR target/33135
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-18 09:16:28
UTC ---
Should this be backported to 4.6 or 4.7?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-18
09:32:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Should this be backported to 4.6 or 4.7?
Maybe. It could be counted as a regression from 4.5 because currently
we have no way
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16 20:50:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I guess that the better default would be -mno-ieee for bare metals
Hm ... Is there a particular reason to distinguish between linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16
22:15:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Thus, I did not want to distinguish between linux or non-linux here.
I have no strong feelings about the bare metal case.
We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16
00:18:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
You are right. Our sh_option_override has code like this:
if (flag_finite_math_only == 2)
flag_finite_math_only
=
16 matches
Mail list logo
