On 30/08/11 15:32, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:03, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
There was a bug I found in final testing, so this has been delayed
somewhat.
I've just committed this version. There are a few minor changes to the
way negative/inverted constants are generated.
Bernd found anothe
On 26/08/11 11:03, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
There was a bug I found in final testing, so this has been delayed
somewhat.
I've just committed this version. There are a few minor changes to the
way negative/inverted constants are generated.
Bernd found another bug whist testing for arm. Apparently t
On 09/05/11 17:23, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 06/05/11 12:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
OK with a change to do that.
Thanks, I can't commit this until my ADDW/SUBW patch has been committed.
There was a bug I found in final testing, so this has been delayed somewhat.
I've just committed this vers
On 06/05/11 12:18, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
+ RETURN_SEQUENCE must be an int[4].
It would be a more robust coding style to define a struct with an int[4]
array as its only member. Then it wouldn't be possible to pass an
undersized object to these routines.
I've attached an updated patch with
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 12:23 +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> This patch is a repost of the one I previously posted here:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00652.html
>
> As requested, I've broken out the other parts of the original patch, and
> those have already been reposted ye
This patch is a repost of the one I previously posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00652.html
As requested, I've broken out the other parts of the original patch, and
those have already been reposted yesterday (and one committed also).
This (final) part is support for
