On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:41 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
>>> thi
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
>> this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bo
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
> this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped
> build. A full bootstrap will use corr
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped
build. A full bootstrap will use correct address.
>>>
>>> The other place where it shows up is
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
>>> this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bo
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
>> this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped
>> build. A full bootstrap will use correct
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that
> this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped
> build. A full bootstrap will use correct address.
The other place where it shows up is cross compil
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>>> This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32.
>>> OK for trunk?
>>>
>>> 2012-04-03 H.J. Lu
>>>
>>> * config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE)
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32.
>> OK for trunk?
>>
>> 2012-04-03 H.J. Lu
>>
>> * config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE): Defined to
>> 0x6000 for x32.
>
> I think we c
Hello!
> This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32.
> OK for trunk?
>
> 2012-04-03 H.J. Lu
>
> * config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE): Defined to
> 0x6000 for x32.
I think we can simply check for __LP64__, without version check, as is
the cas
Hi,
This patch defines TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE for Linux/x32. Tested on Linux/x32.
OK for trunk?
Thanks.
H.J.
---
2012-04-03 H.J. Lu
* config/host-linux.c (TRY_EMPTY_VM_SPACE): Defined to
0x6000 for x32.
diff --git a/gcc/config/host-linux.c b/gcc/config/host-linux.c
index 9
11 matches
Mail list logo