On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 22:04 +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'd say this patch isn't desirable for trunk. I'd be interested in use cases
>> that need a static decision on presence of LSE that are not better expressed
>> using higher l
On 24/07/18 22:55, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 22:04 +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'd say this patch isn't desirable for trunk. I'd be interested in use cases
>> that need a static decision on presence of LSE that are not better expressed
>> using higher level language
On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 22:04 +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
>
> I'd say this patch isn't desirable for trunk. I'd be interested in use cases
> that need a static decision on presence of LSE that are not better expressed
> using higher level language features.
>
> Thanks,
> James
How about when
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 03:22:02PM -0500, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> This is a patch for PR 86538, to define an __ARM_FEATURE_LSE macro
> when LSE is available. Richard Earnshaw closed PR 86538 as WONTFIX
> because the ACLE (Arm C Language Extension) does not require this
> macro and because he is conc
