> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
> wrote:
> >
> > Please find attached an updated patch.
>
> This is ok.
Commited. It was already tested against trunk since it was on the same branch as
my patch for PR54733 which I re
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@suse.de]
>>
>> Please add m68k-*-*.
>
>> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
>> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Rainer Orth
>>
>> Just omit the { target *-*-* } completely, also a
Since stage1 is in effect now, I'm sending a ping for this patch review.
Best regards,
Thomas
> From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@suse.de]
>
> Please add m68k-*-*.
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Rainer Orth
>
> Just omit the { target *-*-* } completely, also a few more times.
Please find attached an updated patch.
gcc32rm-
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
> +# Return 1 if the target supports byte swap instructions.
> +
> +proc check_effective_target_bswap { } {
> +global et_bswap_saved
> +
> +if [info exists et_bswap_saved] {
> +verbose "check_effective_target_bswap: using cached result" 2
> +} else
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
>> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
>>
>> > + if { [is-effective-target bswap]
>> > +&& ![istarget x86_64-*-*] } {
>>
>> That x86_64-*-* test is wrong. x86_64-*-* and i?86-*-* should always be
>> handled the same (if you then wa
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
>
> > + if { [is-effective-target bswap]
> > +&& ![istarget x86_64-*-*] } {
>
> That x86_64-*-* test is wrong. x86_64-*-* and i?86-*-* should always be
> handled the same (if you then want to distinguish 32-bit and 64-bit
>
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> + if { [is-effective-target bswap]
> +&& ![istarget x86_64-*-*] } {
That x86_64-*-* test is wrong. x86_64-*-* and i?86-*-* should always be
handled the same (if you then want to distinguish 32-bit and 64-bit
multilibs, you check
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>
> Sorry, I simply queued it in my review queue for stage1 ... it's definitely
> something that was high on my wish-list (including of also using
> general vector shuffles if available to support even more patterns).
Oh great. Anyway, ha
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> I took the lack of answer for this patch as an indication that the patch is
> too
> big. This is the first patch in a series of three. Its purpose is to create
> some new
> effective target for architecture having byte swap instructions
10 matches
Mail list logo
