Re: RFC -- targets with unsigned bifields

2023-12-18 Thread Jeff Law
On 12/18/23 11:32, Joseph Myers wrote: On Sat, 16 Dec 2023, Jeff Law wrote: I tracked this down to the port unconditionally adding -funsigned-bitfields to CC1_SPEC. According to the comment it's how the ABI is defined for the mcore targets. We explicitly document (under Non-bugs in

Re: RFC -- targets with unsigned bifields

2023-12-18 Thread Joseph Myers
On Sat, 16 Dec 2023, Jeff Law wrote: > I tracked this down to the port unconditionally adding -funsigned-bitfields to > CC1_SPEC. According to the comment it's how the ABI is defined for the mcore > targets. We explicitly document (under Non-bugs in trouble.texi) that we don't do this, and

Re: RFC -- targets with unsigned bifields

2023-12-17 Thread Richard Biener
> Am 17.12.2023 um 04:29 schrieb Jeff Law : > >  > So mcore-elf is the slowest target to test with a simulator. Not because > it's simulator is particularly bad, but because some tests timeout as they've > gotten into infinite loops. This causes the mcore-elf port to take about 2X >

RFC -- targets with unsigned bifields

2023-12-16 Thread Jeff Law
So mcore-elf is the slowest target to test with a simulator. Not because it's simulator is particularly bad, but because some tests timeout as they've gotten into infinite loops. This causes the mcore-elf port to take about 2X longer than most other gdbsim ports. I tracked this down to