This works for me. Do you agree?
It looks good to me.
OK, will commit.
Thanks guys.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 10/21/11 15:46, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>
> X32 uses x86-64 instruction set with 32bit pointers. It has the same
> atomic support as x86-64 and has atomic support for int128.
>
On 10/21/11 15:46, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
X32 uses x86-64 instruction set with 32bit pointers. It has the same
atomic support as x86-64 and has atomic support for int128.
Oh, you aren't talking about 32 bit, but a 32 bit abi on a 64 bit machine.
Th
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > X32 uses x86-64 instruction set with 32bit pointers. It has the same
> > > atomic support as x86-64 and has atomic support for int128.
> >
> > Oh, you aren't talking about 32 bit, but a 32 bit abi on a 64 bit machine.
>
> Thanks for pointing this
On 10/21/11 11:08, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/21/2011 11:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Andrew MacLeod
wrote:
X32 has native int64 and int128.
I presume there is no atomic support for int128 though, and thats what
'condition check_effective_target_sync_int_128' is te
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 11:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Andrew MacLeod
>> wrote:
X32 has native int64 and int128.
>>> I presume there is no atomic support for int128 though, and thats what
>>> 'condition
On 10/21/2011 11:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
X32 has native int64 and int128.
I presume there is no atomic support for int128 though, and thats what
'condition check_effective_target_sync_int_128' is testing for.
X32 uses x86-64 instruction
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 06:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do these operations exist for x32 as well as for -m64? If they do, then
>>> lp64 isn't the right test either; if not, then it
On 10/20/2011 06:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
Do these operations exist for x32 as well as for -m64? If they do, then
lp64 isn't the right test either; if not, then it is.
X32 has native int64 and int128.
I presume there is no atomic suppor
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>> These operations don't exist on x86-32 bits, and when running multilibed
>> tests, the target is still x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu but the target is 32-bits
>> when using -m32.
>
> Any test that
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> These operations don't exist on x86-32 bits, and when running multilibed
> tests, the target is still x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu but the target is 32-bits
> when using -m32.
Any test that only handles one of x86_64-* and i?86-* is automatically
wrong; y
These operations don't exist on x86-32 bits, and when running multilibed
tests, the target is still x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu but the target is
32-bits when using -m32.
The following change checks that we are actually running in 64-bits
before assuming sync_int_128 or sync_long_long exist on th
12 matches
Mail list logo
