> On Jan 12, 2023, at 9:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 09:17:31AM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 2023, at 4:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool
>>> wrote:
>>> I mean general_operand accepts that sp thing you saw. But your
>>> constraints do not? (I don't
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 09:17:31AM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2023, at 4:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > I mean general_operand accepts that sp thing you saw. But your
> > constraints do not? (I don't know your target well, maybe this isn't
> > true). Things like this
> On Jan 12, 2023, at 4:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 05:07:47PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool
>>> wrote:
>>> I would say your predicates are way too lenient here (general_operand),
>>> but this needs more
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 05:07:47PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > I would say your predicates are way too lenient here (general_operand),
> > but this needs more info. A testcase to reproduce the problem, to
> > start with :-)
>
>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 8:44 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 8:09 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 07:39:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Like if they cannot even build their target libraries aka their build
> > > will fail. It would be
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 8:09 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 07:39:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Like if they cannot even build their target libraries aka their build will
> > fail. It would be nice to identify those and, say, make at least -mlra
> > available
> On Jan 11, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:42:22PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
>> Or, as in my case, because building with LRA as the default triggers an ICE
>> that I don't understand. I posted a note to the GCC list about what I saw,
>> but
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:42:22PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> Or, as in my case, because building with LRA as the default triggers an ICE
> that I don't understand. I posted a note to the GCC list about what I saw,
> but have received no reaction.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 07:39:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Like if they cannot even build their target libraries aka their build will
> fail. It would be nice to identify those and, say, make at least -mlra
> available to all ports that currently do not have a way to enable LRA?
It is
> On Jan 11, 2023, at 1:32 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 05:27:36PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> Am 11.01.2023 um 16:17 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
>>> :
Note this is more info for port maintainers not for users and
changes.html is for users.
>>>
> Am 11.01.2023 um 19:34 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
> :
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 05:27:36PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Am 11.01.2023 um 16:17 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
:
> Note this is more info for port maintainers not for users and
> changes.html is for users.
>>>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 05:27:36PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Am 11.01.2023 um 16:17 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
> > :
> >> Note this is more info for port maintainers not for users and
> >> changes.html is for users.
> >
> > And users will notice some ports will have to be removed, because
> Am 11.01.2023 um 16:17 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
> :
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:34:45PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 3:22 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Happy new year everyone.
Is this patch
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:34:45PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 3:22 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2023, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Happy new year everyone.
> > >
> > > Is this patch okay to commit?
> >
> > From a wwwdocs perspective, yes.
> >
> >
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 3:22 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Happy new year everyone.
> >
> > Is this patch okay to commit?
>
> From a wwwdocs perspective, yes.
>
> Are you also *asking* from an architectural/"strategic" perspective,
> or simply
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Happy new year everyone.
>
> Is this patch okay to commit?
>From a wwwdocs perspective, yes.
Are you also *asking* from an architectural/"strategic" perspective,
or simply *informing*? :-) The former I cannot approve, the latter I
certainly
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 02:54:04PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 2023, at 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > +Support for old reload is deprecated. It will be removed in a
> > future
> > + release. Every target will always use LRA from then on.
> Does this mean that
Does this mean that targets that have an option to use LRA or not should now
default to LRA? Some currently default to old reload.
paul
> On Jan 5, 2023, at 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Happy new year everyone.
>
> Is this patch okay to commit?
>
>
> Segher
Hi!
Happy new year everyone.
Is this patch okay to commit?
Segher
---
htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
index 3876ad77543a..954469cdcfa4 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
+++
19 matches
Mail list logo
