> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
> wrote:
> >
> > Please find attached an updated patch.
>
> This is ok.
Commited. It was already tested against trunk since it was on the same branch as
my patch for PR54733 which I re
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@suse.de]
>>
>> Please add m68k-*-*.
>
>> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
>> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Rainer Orth
>>
>> Just omit the { target *-*-* } completely, also a
Since stage1 is in effect now, I'm sending a ping for this patch review.
Best regards,
Thomas
> From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@suse.de]
>
> Please add m68k-*-*.
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Rainer Orth
>
> Just omit the { target *-*-* } completely, also a few more times.
Please find attached an updated patch.
gcc32rm-
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
> +# Return 1 if the target supports byte swap instructions.
> +
> +proc check_effective_target_bswap { } {
> +global et_bswap_saved
> +
> +if [info exists et_bswap_saved] {
> +verbose "check_effective_target_bswap: using cached result" 2
> +} else
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
>> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
>>
>> > + if { [is-effective-target bswap]
>> > +&& ![istarget x86_64-*-*] } {
>>
>> That x86_64-*-* test is wrong. x86_64-*-* and i?86-*-* should always be
>> handled the same (if you then wa
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
>
> > + if { [is-effective-target bswap]
> > +&& ![istarget x86_64-*-*] } {
>
> That x86_64-*-* test is wrong. x86_64-*-* and i?86-*-* should always be
> handled the same (if you then want to distinguish 32-bit and 64-bit
>
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> + if { [is-effective-target bswap]
> +&& ![istarget x86_64-*-*] } {
That x86_64-*-* test is wrong. x86_64-*-* and i?86-*-* should always be
handled the same (if you then want to distinguish 32-bit and 64-bit
multilibs, you check
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>
> Sorry, I simply queued it in my review queue for stage1 ... it's definitely
> something that was high on my wish-list (including of also using
> general vector shuffles if available to support even more patterns).
Oh great. Anyway, ha
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> I took the lack of answer for this patch as an indication that the patch is
> too
> big. This is the first patch in a series of three. Its purpose is to create
> some new
> effective target for architecture having byte swap instructions
I took the lack of answer for this patch as an indication that the patch is too
big. This is the first patch in a series of three. Its purpose is to create
some new
effective target for architecture having byte swap instructions and make use
of them in the existing byte swap tests. One effective t
11 matches
Mail list logo
