Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> * config/spu/spu.c (spu_flag_var_tracking): Drop.
> (TARGET_DELAY_VARTRACK): Define.
> (spu_var_tracking): New.
> (spu_machine_dependent_reorg): Call it.
> (asm_file_start): Don't save and override flag_var_tracking.
This change caused crashe
On 06/03/2011 04:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Trunk is now fixed, is the patch ok for the 4.6 branch too?
As far as I'm concerned, sure.
Bernd
On Jun 2, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Right you are, though it looks like leaving the @hook lines out makes no
> difference. Anyhow, here's the patch I'm checking in.
Trunk is now fixed, is the patch ok for the 4.6 branch too?
> for gcc/ChangeLog
> from Alexandre Oliva
> PR debu
On Jun 1, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 12:47 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>> Looks ok, except I think you need to update tm.texi.in and tm.texi?
>>
>> Oh, I didn't realize updating tm.texi.in; AFAICT tm.texi is generated
>> the same regardl
On 06/02/2011 12:47 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> Looks ok, except I think you need to update tm.texi.in and tm.texi?
>
> Oh, I didn't realize updating tm.texi.in; AFAICT tm.texi is generated
> the same regardless.
I *think* what one is supposed to do is t
On Jun 1, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 10:10 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May 4, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> This comment looks very weird when added to ia64_option_override
>>> (likewise for other targets). Is there a reason it's not true anymore?
>>
>> Dunno, but th
On 06/01/2011 10:10 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 4, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
>> This comment looks very weird when added to ia64_option_override
>> (likewise for other targets). Is there a reason it's not true anymore?
>
> Dunno, but the patch definitely didn't work any more when I r
On May 4, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> This comment looks very weird when added to ia64_option_override
> (likewise for other targets). Is there a reason it's not true anymore?
Dunno, but the patch definitely didn't work any more when I retested it.
Maybe it didin't work when I first tested it,
On 04/02/2011 10:15 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Some targets delayed the var-tracking pass to run it after
> machine-specific transformations. The introduction of option saving and
> restoring broke this, because the machine-specific overriding took place
> too late for it to be saved, so, after
Some targets delayed the var-tracking pass to run it after
machine-specific transformations. The introduction of option saving and
restoring broke this, because the machine-specific overriding took place
too late for it to be saved, so, after compiling a function that used a
different set of optio
10 matches
Mail list logo
