On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, James Greenhalgh wrote:
As far as I know the behaviour of this flag has always been this way.
So is this also OK to backport to release branches?
2014-02-05 James Greenhalgh
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, James Greenhalgh wrote:
As far as I know the behaviour of this flag has always been this way.
So is this also OK to backport to release branches?
2014-02-05 James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
PR target/59718
* doc/invoke.texi (-march=): Clarify
*ping*
Thanks,
James
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:01:51AM +, James Greenhalgh wrote:
Hi,
I've tripped myself over with these three options too many times,
actually, their behaviour is very simple.
This patch clarifies the language used to describe the options, and
puts them in a
On 01/27/14 10:01, James Greenhalgh wrote:
Hi,
I've tripped myself over with these three options too many times,
actually, their behaviour is very simple.
This patch clarifies the language used to describe the options, and
puts them in a logical order. I'm happy to reword again if this
is
b72249d400685a3c1a2e7eee5ad21db86006d34c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:26:12 +
Subject: [ARM Documentation] Clarify -mcpu, -mtune, -march
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=1.8.3-rc0
This is a multi-part message
I've attached what I ended up committing.
As far as I know the behaviour of this flag has always been this way. So is
this also OK to backport to release branches?
Ok by me. It's a documentation fix to make things more explicit.
And s/=/ again in Changelog :) .
Ramana
Thanks,
James
Hi,
I've tripped myself over with these three options too many times,
actually, their behaviour is very simple.
This patch clarifies the language used to describe the options, and
puts them in a logical order. I'm happy to reword again if this
is still not clear.
OK?
Thanks,
James
---
gcc/
