Mallikarjun,
Thanks for trying this. I agree with you that current C implementation
is far from optimal.
It is in our road-map with a different approach, which will not simply
port current functions from armv7-m to armv6-m. This task is low
priority due to less common usage of fp in Cortex-M0*, s
Currently, we treat predicates as "second-class" citizens:
- assume any identifier as a valid predicate
- cannot write more complex predicates than an identifier in match-op
I was wondering whether it would be a good idea
to ave user-defined predicates,
instead of hard-coding them as macros in gim
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140807 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140807/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 08/06/14 04:50, Marc Glisse wrote:
A clean .so.7 break would be significantly worse nightmare. We've been
there many years ago, e.g. 3.2/3.3 vs. 3.4, there has been significantly
fewer C++ plugins etc. in packages and it still it was unsolvable.
With the abi_tag stuff, you have the option to
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 10:01:30AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/07/14 03:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >On 7 August 2014 06:33, Joshua Kinardwrote:
> >>For my own information, what's the cutoff date for fixes to regressions like
> >>this to make it into gcc-4.9.1?
> >
> >A month ago, https://gcc.g
On 08/07/14 03:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 7 August 2014 06:33, Joshua Kinardwrote:
For my own information, what's the cutoff date for fixes to regressions like
this to make it into gcc-4.9.1?
A month ago, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-07/msg00103.html
The GCC home page has links to the st
>
> As a First step I compared the "objump -D" dump between
> "stage2-gcc/gimple.o" and "stage3-gcc/gimple.o". Differences are in
> LTO sections .gnu.lto_.decls.0, .gnu.lto_.symtab.
> Ref: http://paste.ubuntu.com/7949238/
If you see the differences already in .o files (i.e. at compile time), I
On 7 August 2014 06:33, Joshua Kinardwrote:
> For my own information, what's the cutoff date for fixes to regressions like
> this to make it into gcc-4.9.1?
A month ago, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-07/msg00103.html
The GCC home page has links to the status report emails for each active branch.
Hello Prathamesh,
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> I have written notes for "libabigail - Towards Better ABI
> compatibility checking" presented at Cauldron. I would be grateful if
> you would review it for me.
Thank you for writing these notes.
[...]
> A first official release is available at:
