On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:56:48PM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
Otherwise OK.
Thanks,
Hi, chacked into trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-03/msg00785.html
This leads to:
../../gcc/config/t-linux-android:22: warning: overriding recipe for target
`linux-android.o'
Yep.. we missed that:
t-linux-android was added here:
# Add Android userspace support to Linux targets.
case $target in
*linux*)
tm_p_file=${tm_p_file} linux-protos.h
tmake_file=${tmake_file} t-linux-android
tm_file=$tm_file linux-android.h
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 06:24:06PM +0400, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2013-04-02 Alexander Ivchenko alexander.ivche...@intel.com
+
+ * config.gcc (arm*-*-linux-*): Remove duplicate t-linux-android.
+
2013-04-02 Richard Biener
Hi,
is it ok?
Yes.
Checked into trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-04/msg00066.html
Thanks, K
Otherwise OK.
Thanks,
Hi, chacked into trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-03/msg00785.html
Thanks, K
Hi,
Since almost three months have passed I feel that I need to recheck the patch
before commiting it. I fixed what Maxim mentioned and also I fixed:
diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
old mode 100755
new mode 100644
index eac96cd..928693a
--- a/gcc/configure
+++ b/gcc/configure
@@
On 27/03/2013, at 4:14 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Hi,
Since almost three months have passed I feel that I need to recheck the patch
before commiting it. I fixed what Maxim mentioned and also I fixed:
The patch is OK with 2 changes:
1. s/default_have_ifunc_p/default_has_ifunc_p/
The new
thank you very much for your review!
I fixed the arm build and all other issues that you raised.
the patch is attached. Bootstrap and tested on x86-64 linux
Alexander
2013/1/11 Maxim Kuvyrkov maxim.kuvyr...@gmail.com:
On 10/01/2013, at 12:24 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
On 15/01/2013, at 4:55 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
thank you very much for your review!
I fixed the arm build and all other issues that you raised.
the patch is attached. Bootstrap and tested on x86-64 linux
The patch is OK with the cleanups mentioned below (no need to resubmit for
On 10/01/2013, at 12:24 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Config/linux-android.h is a better place for this declaration.
I was wrong here. Config/linux-android.h is not a re-includable header, and
is not fit for function declarations.
That wouldn't help, I got the following error:
In file
Hello Maxim,
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -29146,7 +29146,7 @@ make_name (tree decl, const char *suffix, bool
make_unique)
return global_var_name;
}
-#if defined (ASM_OUTPUT_TYPE_DIRECTIVE) HAVE_GNU_INDIRECT_FUNCTION
+#if defined
On 29/12/2012, at 1:30 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Joseph, Maxim, thank you for your input. I converted this macro into
a target hook as you said. I had to add gcc/config/linux-protos.h in order
to declare linux (that works for android) version of this hook - otherwise
I don't know where to
Joseph, Maxim, thank you for your input. I converted this macro into
a target hook as you said. I had to add gcc/config/linux-protos.h in order
to declare linux (that works for android) version of this hook - otherwise
I don't know where to declare it..
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++
On 27/12/2012, at 1:15 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Hi,
Currently Android dynamic loader does not support indirect functions
(And I don't think that
it will someday). But there is no way for us to specify that for gcc,
and for example, tests like
gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-* are failing on
Hi,
Currently Android dynamic loader does not support indirect functions
(And I don't think that
it will someday). But there is no way for us to specify that for gcc,
and for example, tests like
gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-* are failing on android right now.
The attached patch is indended to add the target
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
The attached patch is indended to add the target hook for indicating
the support of ifunc on target.
That's not a hook, it's a target macro. What is the rationale for this
needing to be a target macro instead of a target hook?
--
Joseph S.
16 matches
Mail list logo
