On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I'd like to ping this patch for GCC 6 (and GCC 5).
>
> Gerald
>
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Uros, okay to also push to the GCC 6 branch for the coming release
>> and later the GCC 5 branch as well? For reference, the com
I'd like to ping this patch for GCC 6 (and GCC 5).
Gerald
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Uros, okay to also push to the GCC 6 branch for the coming release
> and later the GCC 5 branch as well? For reference, the committed
> patch below.
>
> Gerald
>
>
> 2016-12-11 Roger Pau Mo
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Results w/o patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-11/msg00627.html
>
> Results with patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-11/msg00672.html
Thanks, Andreas, quite useful.
For reference, the reason I did not go ahead with th
On Sun, 6 Nov 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Looks good to me, so OK if tested on non-glibc system.
Thanks, Uros!
Turns out at least in my testing our testsuite is a little non-
deterministic :-(, but after tests without the patch, with the
patch, again with the patch, and without the patch again o
On 06.11.16 21:38, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
It appears this got stuck.
Uros, is this okay? I can handle the commit if you approve.
Looks good to me, so OK if tested on non-glibc system.
Results w/o patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresu
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> It appears this got stuck.
>
> Uros, is this okay? I can handle the commit if you approve.
Looks good to me, so OK if tested on non-glibc system.
Thanks,
Uros.
> Gerald
>
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> At the moment the -
It appears this got stuck.
Uros, is this okay? I can handle the commit if you approve.
Gerald
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> At the moment the -m16 option only passes the "--32" parameter to the
> assembler on glibc OSes, while on other OSes the assembler is called without
> any s
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 05:28:29PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 06:31:57PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:18:49PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > > At the moment the -m16 option only passes the "--32" parameter to the
> > > assembler on gli
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 06:31:57PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:18:49PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > At the moment the -m16 option only passes the "--32" parameter to the
> > assembler on glibc OSes, while on other OSes the assembler is called without
> > any spec
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:18:49PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> At the moment the -m16 option only passes the "--32" parameter to the
> assembler on glibc OSes, while on other OSes the assembler is called without
> any specific flag. This is wrong and causes the assembler to fail. Fix it
> by ad
At the moment the -m16 option only passes the "--32" parameter to the
assembler on glibc OSes, while on other OSes the assembler is called without
any specific flag. This is wrong and causes the assembler to fail. Fix it
by adding support for the -m16 option to x86-64.h.
2016-07-06 Roger Pau Monn
11 matches
Mail list logo
