On 11 June 2014 00:03, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> This is patch series is a more complete version of the patch I sent
>> some time ago:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00624.html
>>
>> I have created a series of patc
On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 12 June 2014 04:31, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
>>> At this point I'm going to wait to see if any of the testsuite
>>> maintainers step in and comment
>>
>> [ ducks ] So, I wasn’t goin
On 12 June 2014 04:31, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> I am a bit ambivalent between getting folks to add scan-assembler
>> tests here and worrying between this and getting the behaviour
>> correct. Additionally if you add the complexity of scann
On Jun 10, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> I am a bit ambivalent between getting folks to add scan-assembler
> tests here and worrying between this and getting the behaviour
> correct. Additionally if you add the complexity of scanning for
> aarch64 as well this starts getting mes
On 11 June 2014 00:03, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> This is patch series is a more complete version of the patch I sent
>> some time ago:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00624.html
>>
>> I have created a series of patc
On 6 June 2014 22:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 6 June 2014 17:57, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> On 06/06/14 15:40, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 June 2014 01:32, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Have these been tested for both big and little endian (especially for
tests where m
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> This is patch series is a more complete version of the patch I sent
> some time ago:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00624.html
>
> I have created a series of patches to help review. The 1st one adds
> some documentation, t
On 6 June 2014 17:57, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 06/06/14 15:40, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 6 June 2014 01:32, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> Have these been tested for both big and little endian (especially for
>>> tests where memory layout matters - load / store / lane number tests -
On 06/06/14 15:40, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 6 June 2014 01:32, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Have these been tested for both big and little endian (especially for
tests where memory layout matters - load / store / lane number tests -
remembering that GNU C vector initializers always use array orderin
On 6 June 2014 01:32, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Have these been tested for both big and little endian (especially for
> tests where memory layout matters - load / store / lane number tests -
> remembering that GNU C vector initializers always use array ordering,
> which is not the same as the archi
Have these been tested for both big and little endian (especially for
tests where memory layout matters - load / store / lane number tests -
remembering that GNU C vector initializers always use array ordering,
which is not the same as the architecture-defined lane numbering for big
endian)?
-
This is patch series is a more complete version of the patch I sent
some time ago:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00624.html
I have created a series of patches to help review. The 1st one adds
some documentation, the common .h files defining helpers used in the
actual tests, and tw
12 matches
Mail list logo
