Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> How about:
>
> On ARM, a bug has been fixed in GCC's implementation of the AAPCS
> rules for the layout of vectors that could lead to wrong code being
> generated. Vectors larger than 8 bytes in size are now by default
> aligned to an 8-byte boundary. This is an ABI ch
On 10/08/12 16:18, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 10/08/12 14:44, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>>> Would the following htdocs patch be OK with you? Feel free to suggest
>>> a more appropriate wording ...
>>
>> I think we need to make it clear that this also fixes a bug in the
>>
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 10/08/12 14:44, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > Would the following htdocs patch be OK with you? Feel free to suggest
> > a more appropriate wording ...
>
> I think we need to make it clear that this also fixes a bug in the
> compiler that could lead to a run-time error.
On 10/08/12 14:44, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>> In addition I'd like this documented in changes.html for each of the
>> release branches.
>
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> However, it does need to be release-noted.
>
> Would the following htdocs patch be OK with you?
Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> In addition I'd like this documented in changes.html for each of the
> release branches.
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> However, it does need to be release-noted.
Would the following htdocs patch be OK with you? Feel free to suggest
a more appropriate wording ...
B
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > Would it be OK to backport this to 4.7 and possibly 4.6?
> I'll defer the decision to the target maintainers. But please double-check
> for any changes in the vectorizer parts when backporting to 4.6.
And here
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > Would it be OK to backport this to 4.7 and possibly 4.6?
> I'll defer the decision to the target maintainers. But please double-check
> for any changes in the vectorizer parts when backporting to 4.6.
Thanks! F
>> (Note that while the patch contains changes to common code, those
>> should be no-ops for all targets that do not implement the new hook.)
>
> I'll defer the decision to the target maintainers.
I'd rather have this consistent across all maintained release branches
today than to leave this for
On 07/08/12 16:04, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
ChangeLog:
* target.def (vector_alignment): New target hook.
* doc/tm.texi.i
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> > ChangeLog:
>> >
>> > * target.def (vector_alignment): New target hook.
>> > * doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_VECTOR_ALIGNMENT): Document new hook.
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > ChangeLog:
> >
> > * target.def (vector_alignment): New target hook.
> > * doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_VECTOR_ALIGNMENT): Document new hook.
> > * doc/tm.texi: Regenerate.
> > * targhook
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > OK for mainline?
>
> Ok. Please add to the documentation that the default vector alignment
> has to be a power-of-two multiple of the default vector element alignment.
Committed, thanks. The documentation now
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> > On 11/06/12 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >> The type argument or the size argument looks redundant.
>> >
>> > Technically, yes, we could get rid o
> From: Ulrich Weigand
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:24:08 +0200
> Richard (Earnshaw) has asked me to take over working on this patch now.
>
> I've now made the change requested above and removed the size argument.
> The target is now simply asked to return the required alignment for the
> given v
14 matches
Mail list logo
