On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:34:26AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 06:38:40PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:36:02AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > > Since we've been talking about obsoleti
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:34:26AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 06:38:40PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:36:02AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Since we've been talking about obsoleting cpu support, how about
> > > getting rid of -many in ASM_
On 2/14/17 6:06 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
Since we've been talking about obsoleting cpu support, how about
getting rid of -many in ASM_CPU_SPEC for gcc-8?
+1
Peter
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 06:38:40PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:36:02AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > Since we've been talking about obsoleting cpu support, how about
> > getting rid of -many in ASM_CPU_SPEC for gcc-8?
>
> Sure, but that doesn't need advance warning
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:36:02AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> Since we've been talking about obsoleting cpu support, how about
> getting rid of -many in ASM_CPU_SPEC for gcc-8?
Sure, but that doesn't need advance warning to the users, does it?
Things worked before and stay working, nothing user-vi
Since we've been talking about obsoleting cpu support, how about
getting rid of -many in ASM_CPU_SPEC for gcc-8?
It's a horrible hack of mine to work around gcc -mcpu option handling
bugs which I think have been fixed, and to silence complaints from gas
about asm() written for multiple cpus (with
