On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 05:56:47AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:55:28PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > This patch removes !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS support. -mtls-markers (and
> > -mno-tls-markers) disappear as valid options too, because I figure
> > they haven't been used
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:55:28PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> This patch removes !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS support. -mtls-markers (and
> -mno-tls-markers) disappear as valid options too, because I figure
> they haven't been used too much except by people testing the
> compiler.
Okay.
> (rs6000_c
Hi Alan,
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 05:46:01PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:55:28PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:45:19AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > But if you think we can remove the !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS everywhere it
> > > is relevant at
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:55:28PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:45:19AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > But if you think we can remove the !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS everywhere it
> > is relevant at all, now is the time, patches very welcome, it would be
> > a nice cleanup :-
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:45:19AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> But if you think we can remove the !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS everywhere it
> is relevant at all, now is the time, patches very welcome, it would be
> a nice cleanup :-) Needs testing everywhere of course, but now is
> stage 1 :-)
Thi
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:29:30AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:24:07PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:35:10PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Supporting TLS for -mpcrel turns out to be relatively simple, in part
> > > due to deciding that !T
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:24:07PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:35:10PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > Supporting TLS for -mpcrel turns out to be relatively simple, in part
> > due to deciding that !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS with -mpcrel is silly. No
> > assembler
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:35:10PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> Supporting TLS for -mpcrel turns out to be relatively simple, in part
> due to deciding that !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS with -mpcrel is silly. No
> assembler that I know of supporting prefix insns lacks TLS marker
> support.
Will this st
Supporting TLS for -mpcrel turns out to be relatively simple, in part
due to deciding that !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS with -mpcrel is silly. No
assembler that I know of supporting prefix insns lacks TLS marker
support. Also, at some point powerpc gcc ought to remove
!TARGET_TLS_MARKERS generally and sim
