On 21 Nov 2011, at 00:17, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/20/2011 05:34 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
gcc:
* target.def (tm_clone_table_section): New hook.
* doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION): Define.
* doc/tm.texi: Regenerate.
* varasm.c (dump_tm_clone_pairs): Use targe
On Sunday 20 November 2011 15:34:54, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> +#undef TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION_NAME
> +#define TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION darwin_tm_clone_table_section
#undef TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION
probably.
--
Pedro Alves
On 11/20/2011 05:34 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> gcc:
>
> * target.def (tm_clone_table_section): New hook.
> * doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION): Define.
> * doc/tm.texi: Regenerate.
> * varasm.c (dump_tm_clone_pairs): Use target tm_clone_table_section.
> * conf
Hi Richard,
On 19 Nov 2011, at 18:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/19/2011 02:04 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
It should be possible for Rainer to define
TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION_NAME to NULL, and have varasm use
the normal data section for tm_clone_table sections.One might
wish to re-
On 11/19/2011 02:04 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> It should be possible for Rainer to define
> TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION_NAME to NULL, and have varasm use
> the normal data section for tm_clone_table sections.One might
> wish to re-adjust testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/20100615.c if that is done.
Well
On Nov 19, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2011, at 22:06, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>> TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION_NAME would better be a target hook, not a macro.
>
> ... done as below ...
>
> It should be possible for Rainer to define
> TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION_NAME to NU
On 18 Nov 2011, at 22:06, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION_NAME would better be a target hook, not a
macro.
... done as below ...
It should be possible for Rainer to define
TARGET_ASM_TM_CLONE_TABLE_SECTION_NAME to NULL, and have varasm use
the normal data section for tm_cl
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> > > Index: gcc/defaults.h
> > > ===
> > > --- gcc/defaults.h(revision 181476)
> > > +++ gcc/defaults.h(working copy)
> > > @@ -392,6 +392,14 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYI
Iain Sandoe writes:
> well ... what about this instead then?
That one should at least be no worse than the current situation :-)
> Index: gcc/defaults.h
> ===
> --- gcc/defaults.h(revision 181476)
> +++ gcc/defaults.h(worki
On 18 Nov 2011, at 18:12, Rainer Orth wrote:
Iain Sandoe writes:
This, together with the unconditional use in varasm.c, will lead
to a
bootstrap failure on Tru64 UNIX, which lacks named sections
completely.
right, it was worrying me what a target without named sections does -
... I can
Iain Sandoe writes:
>> This, together with the unconditional use in varasm.c, will lead to a
>> bootstrap failure on Tru64 UNIX, which lacks named sections completely.
>
> right, it was worrying me what a target without named sections does -
> ... I can easily remove the #if defined (TARGET_ASM_N
On 18 Nov 2011, at 17:56, Rainer Orth wrote:
Iain Sandoe writes:
Index: gcc/defaults.h
===
--- gcc/defaults.h (revision 181476)
+++ gcc/defaults.h (working copy)
@@ -392,6 +392,14 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.
Iain Sandoe writes:
> Index: gcc/defaults.h
> ===
> --- gcc/defaults.h(revision 181476)
> +++ gcc/defaults.h(working copy)
> @@ -392,6 +392,14 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respect
> #endif
> #endif
>
> +/
At least Darwin needs a different name for the tm_clone_table section.
I'm wondering what a target without named sections does for this - is
there some reason it needs to be in a separate section (from data)...
... perhaps what I'm missing here will help understand why the clone
tests fail
14 matches
Mail list logo
