On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:20:08PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> There is really no need to define a TLSmode mode iterator that is
> identical (since !TARGET_64BIT == TARGET_32BIT) to the much used P
> mode iterator. It's nonsense to think we might ever want to support
> 32-bit TLS on 64-bit or vice
Version 2.
There is really no need to define a TLSmode mode iterator that is
identical (since !TARGET_64BIT == TARGET_32BIT) to the much used P
mode iterator. It's nonsense to think we might ever want to support
32-bit TLS on 64-bit or vice versa! The patch also fixes a minor
error in the call
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 11:57:13PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:11:28PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > There is really no need to define a TLSmode mode iterator that is
> > > identical (since
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:11:28PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > There is really no need to define a TLSmode mode iterator that is
> > identical (since !TARGET_64BIT == TARGET_32BIT) to the much used P
> > mode iterator.
>
>
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> There is really no need to define a TLSmode mode iterator that is
> identical (since !TARGET_64BIT == TARGET_32BIT) to the much used P
> mode iterator.
Nice :-)
> It's nonsense to think we might ever want to support
> 32-bit TLS on
There is really no need to define a TLSmode mode iterator that is
identical (since !TARGET_64BIT == TARGET_32BIT) to the much used P
mode iterator. It's nonsense to think we might ever want to support
32-bit TLS on 64-bit or vice versa! The patch also fixes a minor
error in the call mems. All
