Hello Segher,
On 14/02/17 04:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi all,
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
No one has pro
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
> the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
> -mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
>
> No
On 14/02/17 12:55, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Segher,
>
> On 14/02/17 04:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
>> the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
>> -mfloat-gprs= command-li
On 14/02/17 15:09, David Brown wrote:
On 14/02/17 12:55, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Segher,
On 14/02/17 04:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi all,
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-m
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 03:26:09PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >>>I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
> >>>the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
> >>>-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
> >>>
Hi Segher,
> On Feb 14, 2017, at 04:07 , Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
> the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
> -mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SP
Snapshot gcc-5-20170214 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20170214/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5
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
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
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 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 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_
12 matches
Mail list logo
