On 04/28/2014 08:00 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> You can re-apply the gcc-interface/Makefile.in hunk
> (I reverted it as well) but you first need to adjust it to the mainline.
Done, after re-bootstrapping on aarch64 Just to Be Sure.
r~
> Bootstrap and test succeeded, thanks.
Thanks, applied as such. You can re-apply the gcc-interface/Makefile.in hunk
(I reverted it as well) but you first need to adjust it to the mainline.
* exp_dbug.ads (Get_External_Name): Add 'False' default to Has_Suffix,
add 'Suffix' para
On 04/23/2014 01:37 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> But it breaks on IA-64 for the same reason as on Aarch64 so we'll need to
>> > find something else.
> Tentative revised patch attached. Can you give it a try when you have some
> time? There is a rationale based on my understanding in types.h. TIA
> But it breaks on IA-64 for the same reason as on Aarch64 so we'll need to
> find something else.
Tentative revised patch attached. Can you give it a try when you have some
time? There is a rationale based on my understanding in types.h. TIA.
--
Eric BotcazouIndex: comperr.adb
=
> OK, I have installed a variant of the patch (it should not change anything).
But it breaks on IA-64 for the same reason as on Aarch64 so we'll need to find
something else.
--
Eric Botcazou
> diff --git a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
> b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in index dc5e912..302d9a3 100644
> --- a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
> +++ b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
> @@ -2123,6 +2123,44 @@ ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out alpha% linux%,$(arch)
> $(osys))),) LIBRARY_VE
> Yes, this bootstrapped.
OK, I have installed a variant of the patch (it should not change anything).
Thanks for working on this.
--
Eric Botcazou
> How about this? I added a check vs MINSIGSTKSZ just in case, and updated
> the commentary a bit. While 16K is 2*SIGSTKSIZE for i686, it certainly
> isn't for powerpc64. But since things are working as-is I thought the
> revision is clearer.
Fine with me, thanks.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 04/16/2014 12:55 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Similarly with the HAVE_GNAT_ALTERNATE_STACK stuff. There aren't any
>> linux hosts that don't support sigaltstack, so why is this
>> conditionalized?
>
> Hum, I didn't know that Android also used the alternate stack... OK, let's
> use it uncondit
On 04/17/2014 08:56 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> I presume that the attached kludge is sufficient to make it work?
>
>
> * fe.h (Compiler_Abort): Replace Fat_Pointer by String.
> (Error_Msg_N): Likewise.
> (Error_Msg_NE): Likewise.
> (Get_External_Name_With_Suffix): Likewise
On 04/17/2014 08:35 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> What about this compile-time check:
>
> package Fatptralign is
>type String_Acc is access String;
>type Integer_acc is access Integer;
>
>pragma Compile_Time_Error
> (String_Acc'Alignment = 1 * Integer_Acc'Alignment,
> "Fat poi
> Ah hah.
>
> /* Make sure we can put it into a register. */
> if (STRICT_ALIGNMENT)
> TYPE_ALIGN (record_type) = MIN (BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT, 2 * POINTER_SIZE);
>
> AArch64 is not a STRICT_ALIGNMENT target, thus the mismatch.
I see. Initially this alignment promotion had been universal, bu
On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:50, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/17/2014 02:00 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Apr 2014, at 17:36, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/16/2014 12:39 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
> with
On 04/17/2014 02:00 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On 16 Apr 2014, at 17:36, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 04/16/2014 12:39 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined
On 16 Apr 2014, at 17:36, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 12:39 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
>>> with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined in
>>> s-stratt.ads, does not include alignment, I can't
On 04/16/2014 12:39 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
>> with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined in
>> s-stratt.ads, does not include alignment, I can't imagine why the C
>> type should have it.
>
> See gcc-int
> Similarly with the HAVE_GNAT_ALTERNATE_STACK stuff. There aren't any
> linux hosts that don't support sigaltstack, so why is this
> conditionalized?
Hum, I didn't know that Android also used the alternate stack... OK, let's
use it unconditionally on Linux then, except for IA-64 which is a tot
> The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
> with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined in
> s-stratt.ads, does not include alignment, I can't imagine why the C
> type should have it.
See gcc-interface/utils.c:finish_fat_pointer_type.
> This cause
The Makfile.in and init.c changes are OK.
The types.h change is likely more controversial and may be problematic,
I'll let Eric comment.
> + system.ads
> IMO, this should really be called system-linux-lp64.ads, and should
> be usable for any 64-bit target that uses full ieee floating point,
> w
From: Richard Henderson
The primary bit of rfc here is the hunk that applies to ada/types.h
with respect to Fat_Pointer. Given that the Ada type, as defined in
s-stratt.ads, does not include alignment, I can't imagine why the C
type should have it.
This causes problems with the AArch64 calling
20 matches
Mail list logo
