On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Jasmin J. <jas...@anw.at> wrote: >
Thank you for your patch - In this case before you make any more changes to this patch - comparing your patch and Terry's patch here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00729.html shows no real differences, I would like to ask if you have a copyright assignment on file with the FSF - Please also read https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for more context on this. How was your patch tested - see for example how I added t-aprofile to the backend and the kind of testing it underwent - I would prefer something like that to be done for all the cpus listed in t-rmprofile (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00659.html). > Ported from svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/ARM/embedded-4_9-branch > > * config.gcc (--with-multilib-list): Accept arm embedded cores. > * configure.ac (with_multilib_list): Export for being used in arm > embedded multilib fragment. This is already being used in config.gcc - why do you need this additional hunk ? > * configure: Regenerated. > * Makefile.in (with_multilib_list): Import for being used in > multilib fragment. Again why ? > * config/arm/t-rmprofile: New multilib fragment for arm embedded > cores. New file is sufficient here in the Changelog entry. The t-rmprofile file will need updating to newer values for -mcpu and march as well as comments up top to explain what multilibs are being built . Ramana
