On 24 July 2013 07:10, Michael Eager <ea...@eagerm.com> wrote: > On 07/14/13 21:37, David Holsgrove wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Michael Eager [mailto:ea...@eagerm.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013 9:33 am >>> To: David Holsgrove >>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Edgar Iglesias; John Williams; Vinod >>> Kathail; >>> Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala; Tom Shui >>> Subject: Re: [Patch, microblaze]: Add TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK to >>> support varargs thunk >>> >>> On 03/18/13 05:49, David Holsgrove wrote: >>>> >>>> Changelog >>>> >>>> 2013-03-18 David Holsgrove <david.holsgr...@xilinx.com> >>>> >>>> * gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.c: Add >>>> microblaze_asm_output_mi_thunk >>>> and define TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK and >>> >>> TARGET_ASM_CAN_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK >>> >>> Sorry it has taken so long to review this patch. >>> >>> The gcc microblaze-xilinx-elf build with this patch fails here: >>> >>> +microblaze_asm_output_mi_thunk (FILE *file, tree thunk_fndecl >>> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, >>> + HOST_WIDE_INT delta, HOST_WIDE_INT >>> vcall_offset, >>> + tree function) >>> ... >>> + emit_insn (gen_jump (funexp)); >>> >>> (actually, in output_operand() downstream from this statement) while >>> compiling >>> c++98/strstream.cc, with an error that the "%l" operand was not a label. >>> >>> This is the first occasion when this routine is called. >>> >> >> I had sent a separate patch which should have been applied prior to this >> one which >> extended the jump insn to accommodate branching without the "%l" print >> operand, >> but I've since reworked our thunk support to avoid needing this second >> patch. >> >> Please find attached updated patch, and new Changelog entry; >> >> 2013-07-15 David Holsgrove <david.holsgr...@xilinx.com> >> >> * gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.c: Add microblaze_asm_output_mi_thunk >> and define TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK and >> TARGET_ASM_CAN_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK >> >> I'll post updated patches on the other threads out for review now. >> >> thanks, >> David > > > > Committed revision 201185. >
Thanks Michael. I think the content of your commit doesnt line up with this Changelog entry or mail though, http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=c4fcbf4cd03c11aa1bc707b00dd95ba52f963b39 It looks like the atomic builtin patch which was posted as this mail; http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00551.html thanks, David > > -- > Michael Eager ea...@eagercon.com > 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
