On 29 February 2016 at 15:28, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
> Hi Crhistophe,
>
>
> On 29/02/16 14:10, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 26 February 2016 at 16:51, James Greenhalgh
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:04:21AM +, Kyrill
Hi Crhistophe,
On 29/02/16 14:10, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 26 February 2016 at 16:51, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:04:21AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Seems like aarch64 is suffering from something similar to PR 69245 as well.
If a
On 26 February 2016 at 16:51, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:04:21AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Seems like aarch64 is suffering from something similar to PR 69245 as well.
>> If a target pragma sets the target state to the same as
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:04:21AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Seems like aarch64 is suffering from something similar to PR 69245 as well.
> If a target pragma sets the target state to the same as the
> target_option_default_node the node is just a pointer to
>
Hi all,
Seems like aarch64 is suffering from something similar to PR 69245 as well.
If a target pragma sets the target state to the same as the
target_option_default_node
the node is just a pointer to target_option_default_node rather than a distinct
identical
node. So we must still restore