On 22 March 2016 at 13:14, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 10:24 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>>
>> The ARM test isn't sufficiently protected against non-compliant
>> configurations,
>> and fails if GCC is configured for arm*linux-gnueabihf for instance
>> (see
>> http://people.linaro.org/~c
On 03/22/2016 10:24 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
The ARM test isn't sufficiently protected against non-compliant configurations,
and fails if GCC is configured for arm*linux-gnueabihf for instance
(see
http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/234342/report-build-info.h
On 18 March 2016 at 17:51, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/18/2016 06:25 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> This fixes an oversight in my previous patch here. I used biggest_mode
>> in the assumption that if the reg was used in the function, it would be
>> set to something other than VOIDmode, but that fails
This fixes an oversight in my previous patch here. I used biggest_mode
in the assumption that if the reg was used in the function, it would be
set to something other than VOIDmode, but that fails if we have a
multiword access - only the first hard reg gets its biggest_mode
assigned in that case
On 03/18/2016 06:25 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
This fixes an oversight in my previous patch here. I used biggest_mode
in the assumption that if the reg was used in the function, it would be
set to something other than VOIDmode, but that fails if we have a
multiword access - only the first hard reg
