Ping..
Forwarded Message
Subject: [PATCH] Add CFI entries for ARM Linux idiv0 / ldiv0
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:25:49 -0400
From: James Lemke jwle...@codesourcery.com
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
A divide by zero exception was not giving a proper traceback for LINUX
ARM_EABI
Tested on gcc-trunk for arm-none-linux-gnueabi.
OK to commit?
2015-06-16 James Lemke jwle...@codesourcery.com
libgcc/config/arm/
* lib1funcs.S (aeabi_idiv0, aeabi_ldiv0): Add CFI entries for
Linux ARM_EABI.
s/for Linux ARM EABI//
given you handle both
On 06/23/2015 12:22 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
I have no access to a non-EABI arm target to test this, not sure if
there are any intree anymore (probably vxworks ?) . It looks sane on
a read - just apply it and look after regressions if anything gets
reported in bugzilla.
Thanks Ramana.
, Ontario
2015-06-16 James Lemke jwle...@codesourcery.com
libgcc/config/arm/
* lib1funcs.S (aeabi_idiv0, aeabi_ldiv0): Add CFI entries for
Linux ARM_EABI.
Index: libgcc/config/arm/lib1funcs.S
===
--- libgcc/config/arm/lib1funcs.S
-11-04 James Lemke jwle...@codesourcery.com
* lib/gcc-defs.exp (dg-additional-files-options): Extend regsub for
dg-additional-files to also match BOL.
Index: lib/gcc-defs.exp
===
--- lib/gcc-defs.exp (revision 204355)
+++ lib/gcc
On 10/19/2012 02:52 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
How do you want to move forward with the VLE patch? Can you localize
more of the changes?
David, I have been distracted by other tasks. I expect to revisit VLE this
week. However, I won't be able to invest much more time on VLE. I'll look
at
;; Return 1 if op is an operand that can be loaded via the GOT.
-;; or non-special register register field no cr0
(define_predicate got_operand
(match_code symbol_ref,const,label_ref))
Most likely should be submitted and committed (as obvious) separately.
Yes, will do.
switch
On 09/07/2012 07:52 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
This patch contains a lot of unnecessary, gratuitous changes in
addition to being very invasive. It was not edited and cleaned
sufficiently before posting. It has too much of a negative impact on
the current PowerPC port. The patch is not going to
On 09/06/2012 06:09 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Could you explain why you are changing system.h ?
That was a convenience to me at one point.
It should have been deleted from the patch set.
--
Jim Lemke
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery
Orillia Ontario, +1-613-963-1073
On 09/06/2012 07:07 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
The -t* options added duplicate -mcpu= options; the only existing
precedent appears to be arm-vxworks and I don't think the options are
appropriate for generic PowerPC target files (not specific to an OS port
such as VxWorks with its own special
10 matches
Mail list logo
