Patch ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02258.html
Any comments, Richard? Thanks.
Ping.
This was posted in Stage 1, thus still should be valid for Stage 3.
First we hit a issue with OpenLoops package were we generated big functions
bodies (1-2MB) [1]. This caused the GNU assembler not to be happy as it
generated
PC-relative offsets to literal pool above 1MB. The authors of pa
Hi,
This is a pin for:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02258.html
Thanks.
On 18/11/14 12:51, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Yangfei (Felix)
wrote:
Ping again? Any comment please?
Pinging daily is only going to irritate people. Please desist from doing so.
Ramana
Oh, thanks for reminding me. And sorry if this bothers you guys.
The
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Yangfei (Felix)
> wrote:
> > Ping again? Any comment please?
>
>
> Pinging daily is only going to irritate people. Please desist from doing so.
>
> Ramana
Oh, thanks for reminding me. And sorry if this bothers you guys.
The end of stage1 of GCC 5.0 caus
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
> Ping again? Any comment please?
Pinging daily is only going to irritate people. Please desist from doing so.
Ramana
>
>
>>
>> Ping? I hope this patch can catch up with stage 1 of GCC-5.0. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Hi Felix,
>> > >
>
Ping again? Any comment please?
>
> Ping? I hope this patch can catch up with stage 1 of GCC-5.0. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> > > Hi Felix,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the delay responding, I've been out of the office recently
> > > and I'm only just catching up on a backlog of GCC related emails.
> > >
Ping? I hope this patch can catch up with stage 1 of GCC-5.0. Thanks.
> > Hi Felix,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay responding, I've been out of the office recently
> > and I'm only just catching up on a backlog of GCC related emails.
> >
> > I'm in two minds about this; I can potentially see th
> Hi Felix,
>
> Sorry for the delay responding, I've been out of the office recently and I'm
> only
> just catching up on a backlog of GCC related emails.
>
> I'm in two minds about this; I can potentially see the need for attributes to
> enable long calls for specific calls, and maybe also for
On 27/10/14 09:21, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
>> +/* Handle pragmas for compatibility with Intel's compilers. */
>> +#define REGISTER_TARGET_PRAGMAS() do {
>> \
>> + c_register_pragma (0, "long_calls", aarch64_pr_long_calls);
>> \
>> + c_register_
> +/* Handle pragmas for compatibility with Intel's compilers. */
> +#define REGISTER_TARGET_PRAGMAS() do {
> \
> + c_register_pragma (0, "long_calls", aarch64_pr_long_calls);
> \
> + c_register_pragma (0, "no_long_calls", aarch64_pr_no_long
Hi,
This patch adds support for -mlong-calls option for aarch64 port. Major
code borrowed from ARM.
I'm doing regression test for it right now. Any comments?
Index: gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.opt
===
--- gcc/config/aarch6
12 matches
Mail list logo
