On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:20 +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I think we are now in the position where we can merge the arm hard-vfp
> ABI code into trunk. There are no known issues with the compiler code
> and just one outstanding issue relating to tests and dealing with
> compiler variants (mult
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I think we are now in the position where we can merge the arm hard-vfp
> ABI code into trunk. There are no known issues with the compiler code
> and just one outstanding issue relating to tests and dealing with
> compiler variants (multilibs and other
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:59:01 +0200
>> I believe that I could legitimately approve that patch myself (it's
>> pretty trivial and I didn't author it), but I'd prefer to get approval
>> from one of the SPARC maintainers. Here's your chance:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
> I believe that I could legitimately approve that patch myself (it's
> pretty trivial and I didn't author it), but I'd prefer to get approval
> from one of the SPARC maintainers. Here's your chance:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-04/msg01027.html
OK.
--
Eric Botcazou
I think we are now in the position where we can merge the arm hard-vfp
ABI code into trunk. There are no known issues with the compiler code
and just one outstanding issue relating to tests and dealing with
compiler variants (multilibs and other options). That issue shouldn't
prevent merging.
Al
