On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 10:38:49AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Thanks to everyone who helped with development, testing, and review of
the patch set! I've committed the changes to 4.8 this morning. Note
that patch 15/26 was rejected as not really germane to this series and
has been submitted
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:51:54AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 10:38:49AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Thanks to everyone who helped with development, testing, and review of
the patch set! I've committed the changes to 4.8 this morning. Note
that patch 15/26 was
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 11:51 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 10:38:49AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Thanks to everyone who helped with development, testing, and review of
the patch set! I've committed the changes to 4.8 this morning. Note
that patch 15/26 was rejected as
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 12:03 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Another issue is bad toplevel ChangeLog entries.
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Backport from mainline
2013-11-22 Ulrich Weigand ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
* libgo/config/libtool.m4: Update
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:27:33AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Ah, right. I had meant to fix this before committing the patch set and
dropped the ball.
Thanks.
One question: Where are ChangeLog entries supposed to go for libgo?
There doesn't seem to be any kind of ChangeLog file for that
Cleaned up as r209249.
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 17:28 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:27:33AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Ah, right. I had meant to fix this before committing the patch set and
dropped the ball.
Thanks.
One question: Where are ChangeLog entries
Cleaned up as r209250.
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 11:51 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 10:38:49AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Thanks to everyone who helped with development, testing, and review of
the patch set! I've committed the changes to 4.8 this morning. Note
that
Thanks to everyone who helped with development, testing, and review of
the patch set! I've committed the changes to 4.8 this morning. Note
that patch 15/26 was rejected as not really germane to this series and
has been submitted separately by Peter Bergner.
209087 1/26 diff-p8
209088 2/26
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Bill Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi,
Support for Power8 features and the new powerpc64le-linux-gnu target,
including the ELFv2 ABI, has been developed up till now on the
ibm/gcc-4_8-branch. It was appropriate to use this separate branch
while
On 21/03/2014 1:05 pm, Bill Schmidt wrote:
For convenience of those who have kindly agreed to test the patch
series, here is the entire series as a single compressed patch. Note
that this does not include patch 15/26, which we've agreed to submit
separately.
I have tested the patch with RTEMS
Hi Bill,
On 21 Mar 2014, at 02:05, Bill Schmidt wrote:
For convenience of those who have kindly agreed to test the patch
series, here is the entire series as a single compressed patch. Note
that this does not include patch 15/26, which we've agreed to submit
separately.
To assess this on
Alan Modra wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:35:59PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/19/14 15:03, Bill Schmidt wrote:
The three pieces that are somewhat controversial for non-powerpc targets
are 9/26, 10/26, 15/26.
* Uli and Alan, can you speak to any concerns for 9/26?
I've got no
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 16:03 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:05 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess the most important question is what guarantees there are that it
won't affect non-powerpc* ports too much (my main concern is the 9/26 patch,
plus the C++ FE / libstdc++
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:25:54PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 16:03 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:05 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess the most important question is what guarantees there are that it
won't affect non-powerpc* ports too
On 03/19/14 21:18, Alan Modra wrote:
implementing either ELFv2 or ELFv1 ABIs. Another thing that we didn't
change is that sibcalls can be allowed in more cases than the current
code allows.
Right. IIRC we deferred allowing more sibcalls until the next stage1
out of an abundance of caution.
Hi,
Support for Power8 features and the new powerpc64le-linux-gnu target,
including the ELFv2 ABI, has been developed up till now on the
ibm/gcc-4_8-branch. It was appropriate to use this separate branch
while the support was unstable, but this branch will not represent a
particularly good
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:23:58PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Support for Power8 features and the new powerpc64le-linux-gnu target,
including the ELFv2 ABI, has been developed up till now on the
ibm/gcc-4_8-branch. It was appropriate to use this separate branch
while the support was unstable,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:23:58PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Support for Power8 features and the new powerpc64le-linux-gnu target,
including the ELFv2 ABI, has been developed up till now on the
ibm/gcc-4_8-branch. It was
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:05 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess the most important question is what guarantees there are that it
won't affect non-powerpc* ports too much (my main concern is the 9/26 patch,
plus the C++ FE / libstdc++ changes), and how much does this affect
code generation and
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 16:03 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:05 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess the most important question is what guarantees there are that it
won't affect non-powerpc* ports too much (my main concern is the 9/26 patch,
plus the C++ FE / libstdc++
On 03/19/14 15:03, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:05 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess the most important question is what guarantees there are that it
won't affect non-powerpc* ports too much (my main concern is the 9/26 patch,
plus the C++ FE / libstdc++ changes), and how
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:35:59PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/19/14 15:03, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:05 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess the most important question is what guarantees there are that it
won't affect non-powerpc* ports too much (my main concern is the
22 matches
Mail list logo
