On 10/10/2011 05:50 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> So, the patch for build_constant_desc does not have the desired effect. > > OK, too bad that we need to play this back-and-forth game with MEMs. So the > original patch is OK (with TREE_READONLY (base) on the next line to mimic > what > is done just above and without the gcc/ prefix in the ChangeLog). If you > have > some available cycles, you can test and install the build_constant_desc > change > in the same commit, otherwise I'll do it myself. >
I'll include the build_constant_desc change in a bootstrap/reg-test on x86_64. Thanks, - Tom
