Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

* Jeff Law [2016-11-29 10:35:50 -0700]: > On 11/29/2016 07:02 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > * Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]: > > > > > On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > > > * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On 11/29/2016 07:02 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: * Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]: On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]: On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

* Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]: > On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]: > > > > > On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote: > > > > On Nov 19, 2016, at

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]: On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote: On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: So, your new test

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]: > On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess > > wrote: > >>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets: > >> > >>

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess > wrote: >>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets: >> >> After a little digging I think the problem might be that >>

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >> So, your new test fails on arm* targets: > > After a little digging I think the problem might be that > -freorder-blocks-and-partition is not supported on arm. > > This should be detected as the new tests

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-18 13:21:50 +0100]: > On 16 November 2016 at 23:12, Andrew Burgess > wrote: > > * Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]: > > > >> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On 16 November 2016 at 23:12, Andrew Burgess wrote: > * Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]: > >> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess >> wrote: >> > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On 11/16/2016 03:12 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: * Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]: On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict them to targets that I suspect

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

* Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]: > On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess > wrote: > > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict > > them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with: > > > >/* {

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict > them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with: > >/* { dg-final-use { scan-assembler "\.section\[\t >

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

* Bernd Schmidt [2016-11-03 13:01:32 +0100]: > On 09/14/2016 03:00 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its > > correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I > > think things currently work. I'm

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On 09/14/2016 03:00 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will already know this, but hopefully, if my

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

* Jeff Law [2016-10-28 09:58:14 -0600]: > On 09/15/2016 08:24 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > * Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > > > In an attempt to get this patch merged

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On 09/15/2016 08:24 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: * Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote: In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its correct) I've investigated, and documented a little

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

* Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its > > correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I > > think things

Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote: > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its > correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I > think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will > already know this, but

Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag.

In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will already know this, but hopefully, if my understanding is wrong someone can point it out. I've