On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Ian
Will backport to arm/embedded-4_7-branch. No sure if appropriate for
4.7 branch since it is not a stability problem.
- Joey
On 17 August 2012 07:29, Julian Brown jul...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:56:52 +0100
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramra...@arm.com wrote:
On 07/24/12 13:27, Julian Brown wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:15:27 +0100
Julian Brown jul...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Anyway: this
On 07/24/12 13:27, Julian Brown wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:15:27 +0100
Julian Brown jul...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Anyway: this revised version of the patch removes the strange libgcc
Makefile-fragment changes, the equivalent of which have since been
incorporated into mainline GCC now
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:56:52 +0100
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramra...@arm.com wrote:
On 07/24/12 13:27, Julian Brown wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:15:27 +0100
Julian Brown jul...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Anyway: this revised version of the patch removes the strange
libgcc Makefile-fragment
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramra...@arm.com wrote:
On 07/24/12 13:27, Julian Brown wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:15:27 +0100
Julian Brown jul...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Anyway: this revised version of the patch removes the strange libgcc
Makefile-fragment
Hello,
with this move to t-bpabi other targets like RTEMS profit also from this
change. This is very good since the unwinder pull-in for 64-bit divisions was
pretty bad for small Cortex-M3 systems with internal flash only.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Obere Lagerstr.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:15:27 +0100
Julian Brown jul...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Anyway: this revised version of the patch removes the strange libgcc
Makefile-fragment changes, the equivalent of which have since been
incorporated into mainline GCC now anyway, so the patch is somewhat
more
Hi,
This (old!) patch avoids uselessly pulling in the unwinder for 64-bit
division routines. I last posted it here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01618.html
Other people have noticed the same issue, e.g.:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-03/msg00187.html
Note that we take