On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:33:35 PST (-0800), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:20:34 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 01:13:45PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 02:45:53 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> riscv*-*-* are the
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:20:34 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 01:13:45PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 02:45:53 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> riscv*-*-* are the only modern targets that !HAVE_AS_LEB128 (apparently
> due to som
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 01:13:45PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 02:45:53 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> > riscv*-*-* are the only modern targets that !HAVE_AS_LEB128 (apparently
> > due to some aggressive linker optimizations).
>
> I don't really understand the
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 02:45:53 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Hi!
riscv*-*-* are the only modern targets that !HAVE_AS_LEB128 (apparently
due to some aggressive linker optimizations).
I don't really understand the rest of this, but we do have a subset of
LEB128 (constant expression
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> riscv*-*-* are the only modern targets that !HAVE_AS_LEB128 (apparently
> due to some aggressive linker optimizations).
> As the following testcase shows, we mishandle in index_rnglists the
> !HAVE_AS_LEB128 && !have_multiple_function_sections c
Hi!
riscv*-*-* are the only modern targets that !HAVE_AS_LEB128 (apparently
due to some aggressive linker optimizations).
As the following testcase shows, we mishandle in index_rnglists the
!HAVE_AS_LEB128 && !have_multiple_function_sections case.
output_rnglists does roughly:
FOR_EACH_VEC_SAFE
