On 01/04/12 08:55, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 01/03/12 14:33, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 01/04/2012 01:10 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I can certainly do this. I am however, waiting for the final
approval. It wasn't clear whether that was an approval from Richard
Henderson, or whether I should wait for an official ok.
OK for mainline?
Yes, it was approval.
r~
Richi, this is the patch I committed with your suggestions for the
documentation (*). Let me know if you'd like it worded different.
(*) Note, the test got committed by mistake in my previous commit a few
minutes ago along with my previous fix. Sorry about that.
Arghhh... It seems I had already committed this patch before the
holidays, but I had mistakenly thought it hadn't been approved nor
committed. Consequently, the last patch was a duplicate (with the
exception of the documentation change).
I am embarrassingly committing the following. Blame it on the holiday
mojitos.
* opts.c (finish_options): Remove duplicate sorry.
Index: opts.c
===================================================================
--- opts.c (revision 182877)
+++ opts.c (working copy)
@@ -666,9 +666,6 @@ finish_options (struct gcc_options *opts
if (opts->x_flag_tm && opts->x_flag_non_call_exceptions)
sorry ("transactional memory is not supported with non-call exceptions");
- if (opts->x_flag_tm && opts->x_flag_non_call_exceptions)
- sorry ("transactional memory is not supported with non-call exceptions");
-
/* -Wmissing-noreturn is alias for -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn. */
if (opts->x_warn_missing_noreturn)
opts->x_warn_suggest_attribute_noreturn = true;
