On Aug 19, 2014, at 6:12 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> So how about this?
Ok. Thanks.
On 11/08/14 18:34, Mike Stump wrote:
On Aug 11, 2014, at 2:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Not quite, read the subject line again.
Doh. I did miss that entirely. The solutions I gave were for other cases than
the case at hand.
I'm not sure what the correct change to the testsuite is here.
On Aug 11, 2014, at 2:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Not quite, read the subject line again.
Doh. I did miss that entirely. The solutions I gave were for other cases than
the case at hand.
> I'm not sure what the correct change to the testsuite is here.
The below is close, let me refine it
On 08/08/14 18:53, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 1:38 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed explanation, the linker errors I was seeing were
>> about relocations being truncated.
>
> Ah, those are bugs in your port! You should be able to generate large code
> and the
On Aug 7, 2014, at 1:38 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation, the linker errors I was seeing were
> about relocations being truncated.
Ah, those are bugs in your port! You should be able to generate large code and
then relax it into short small code. Large code,
Hi Mike,
On 01/08/14 01:00, Mike Stump wrote:
On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
However if we have a situation where a port tries to ameliorate some
of these errors with linker veneering and the compiler testsuite peels
off such error messages and just marks them as UNS
On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> However if we have a situation where a port tries to ameliorate some
> of these errors with linker veneering and the compiler testsuite peels
> off such error messages and just marks them as UNSUPPORTED instead of
> getting a failure, is
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>> These tests use very large arrays as part of their loop interchange testing
>>> so they don't fit into the 1MiB binary size limit impos
On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> These tests use very large arrays as part of their loop interchange testing
>> so they don't fit into the 1MiB binary size limit imposed by -mcmodel=tiny.
>> This causes errors at link-time.
On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> These tests use very large arrays as part of their loop interchange testing
> so they don't fit into the 1MiB binary size limit imposed by -mcmodel=tiny.
> This causes errors at link-time.
> Ok to commit?
So the test suite should be used to
On 22/07/14 16:01, Sebastian Pop wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
These tests use very large arrays as part of their loop interchange testing
so they don't fit into the 1MiB binary size limit imposed by -mcmodel=tiny.
This causes errors at link-time.
Skip
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> These tests use very large arrays as part of their loop interchange testing
> so they don't fit into the 1MiB binary size limit imposed by -mcmodel=tiny.
> This causes errors at link-time.
>
> Skip them when that is the case.
>
>
Hi all,
These tests use very large arrays as part of their loop interchange
testing so they don't fit into the 1MiB binary size limit imposed by
-mcmodel=tiny. This causes errors at link-time.
Skip them when that is the case.
Ok to commit?
Thanks,
Kyrill
2014-07-22 Kyrylo Tkachov
*
13 matches
Mail list logo
