Re: [ping 6] [patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations (is anyone even reading these?)

2012-04-30 Thread DJ Delorie
Set up a cron job to ping once a day. :-) Did you ever dig up the Apple test cases from the APPLE LOCAL work I pointed you at earlier? They will be more comprehensive that any testing you've done, and, if you get them to all pass, the work should be closer to being complete. The feature

Re: [ping 6] [patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations (is anyone even reading these?)

2012-04-30 Thread Mike Stump
I've been reading your patches... On Apr 30, 2012, at 4:34 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: In going through the Apple test cases, I discovered one HUGE disadvantage to using __attribute__ to tag structures for bit reversal - it doesn't propogate. I.e.: This is why pragma exists. :-) Certainly, once

Re: [ping 6] [patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations (is anyone even reading these?)

2012-04-03 Thread DJ Delorie
Did you ever dig up the Apple test cases from the APPLE LOCAL work I pointed you at earlier? Sorry, I read that as the internal tree at Apple not the apple branch at fsf. I'll look at it, thanks! They will be more comprehensive that any testing you've done, and, if you get them to all

Re: [ping 6] [patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations (is anyone even reading these?)

2012-04-03 Thread Mike Stump
On Apr 3, 2012, at 12:57 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Did you ever dig up the Apple test cases from the APPLE LOCAL work I pointed you at earlier? Sorry, I read that as the internal tree at Apple not the apple branch at fsf. I'll look at it, thanks! Oh, I just checked the llvm-gcc-4.2 tree, which

Re: [ping 6] [patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations (is anyone even reading these?)

2012-04-03 Thread Richard Guenther
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:41 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: Ping 6... It's now been over EIGHT MONTHS since I posted the patch, back in stage 1 for 4.7.  Can someone please review and/or approve this before gcc 4.8's stage 1 is closed?  This is needed as a first step for ABI

Re: [ping 6] [patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations (is anyone even reading these?)

2012-04-03 Thread DJ Delorie
If it's required for ABI compatibility why is this an attribute and not a target hook? The ABI uses a #pragma; after this is in I'll do a target-specific pragma handler to set the attribute. Plus, when I originally proposed the idea, I was told it was generic so make it an attribute ;-)

Re: [ping 6] [patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations (is anyone even reading these?)

2012-04-02 Thread DJ Delorie
Ping 6... It's now been over EIGHT MONTHS since I posted the patch, back in stage 1 for 4.7. Can someone please review and/or approve this before gcc 4.8's stage 1 is closed? This is needed as a first step for ABI compatibility for rx-elf. Ping 5... Ping 4... Ping 3? It's been

Re: [ping 6] [patch] attribute to reverse bitfield allocations (is anyone even reading these?)

2012-04-02 Thread Mike Stump
On Apr 2, 2012, at 12:41 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Ping 6... It's now been over EIGHT MONTHS since I posted the patch, back in stage 1 for 4.7. Can someone please review and/or approve this before gcc 4.8's stage 1 is closed? This is needed as a first step for ABI compatibility for rx-elf.