On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> PFA, the patch modified as per your suggestion.
This is cool, please go ahead. (It would have been fine to commit
this based on my previous mail. :-)
> I have also attached here another patch for contrib.texi file changes.
Very well.
+Sumanth Gunda
Hello Gerald,
Thank you for reviewing the earlier patch.
PFA, the patch modified as per your suggestion.
I have also attached here another patch for contrib.texi file changes.
Please let me know if any modifications are required in it.
Thanks and Regards,
Jayant Sonar
[KPIT Cummins, Pune]
cr
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> I have not worked on these changes before. Therefore, can you please
> review the attached patch and let me know if any changes are required
> to be done in it.
Index: wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html
===
Hello Gerald,
Thank you for this suggestion.
I have not worked on these changes before. Therefore, can you please review
the attached patch and let me know if any changes are required to be done in
it.
Thanks and Regards,
Jayant Sonar
[KPIT Cummins, Pune]
cr16-htdocs2.diff
Description: cr1
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> After making some minor changes related to build problems, I have
> checked-in the CR16 GCC port yesterday.
How about a news item on our main web page, and release notes
entry under gcc-4.7/changes.html? Details on how to create
changes for our web pa
Hello Hans-Peter,
I guess, we do have a corporate assignment for KPIT.
It was signed by Bradley Kuhn from FSF side and Dhananjay Deshpande from
KPIT side, during April 2003. In a mail, Peter Brown from FSF has mentioned
ticket number #22417 which was associated with this corporate assignment.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
> > I don't see anything matching in copyright.list, which has to be
> > in place first. No blanket assignment for KPIT or KPIT Cummins.
> > Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> I'd generally understand
>
>
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> I don't see anything matching in copyright.list, which has to be
> in place first. No blanket assignment for KPIT or KPIT Cummins.
> Maybe I'm missing something.
I'd generally understand
GCC KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd2003-04-15
Transfer
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 11:50 PM, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> > I don't have commit rights. Please let me know how to proceed.
>
> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi
>
> will take care of the commit rights part.
I don't see anything matching in copy
On 01/11/2012 11:50 PM, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> I don't have commit rights. Please let me know how to proceed.
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi
will take care of the commit rights part.
r~
Hello Richard and Joseph,
Thanks a lot for reviewing the patch.
I will work on the problems pointed out by Richard. As he has mentioned,
I can check in those changes post-commit. If so, I would prefer that option.
In that case, do we need to wait for someone else's approval or can this
be com
On 01/10/2012 11:55 PM, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> PING 9: For reviewing the modified CR16 port.
>
> Hello,
>
> Can some one please review the updated patch and let me know if any more
> changes are required to be done in it?
>
> Rainer had suggested few important changes last time. After making
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> PING 9: For reviewing the modified CR16 port.
>
> Hello,
>
> Can some one please review the updated patch and let me know if any more
> changes are required to be done in it?
>
> Rainer had suggested few important changes last time. After making th
PING 9: For reviewing the modified CR16 port.
Hello,
Can some one please review the updated patch and let me know if any more
changes are required to be done in it?
Rainer had suggested few important changes last time. After making those
changes, the modified patch was posted at following URL:
PING 8: For reviewing the modified CR16 port.
Hello,
Can some one please review the updated patch and let me know if any more
changes are required to be done in it?
Rainer had suggested few important changes last time. After making those
changes, the modified patch was posted at following URL:
PING 7: For reviewing the modified CR16 port.
Hello,
Can some one please review the updated patch and let me know if any more
changes are required to be done in it?
Rainer had suggested few important changes last time. After making those
changes, the modified patch was posted at following URL:
PING: For reviewing the modified CR16 port.
Hello,
Can some one please review the updated patch and let me know if any more
changes are required to be done in it?
The modified patch was posted at following URL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg02625.html
Thanks and Regards,
Jayant
Hi Jayant,
> Sorry, I had not gone well through the libgcc related changes in GCC-4.7.
> Hence I missed moving rest of the libgcc routines to top level libgcc
> directory.
I noticed a couple of minor issues in the libgcc changes:
* LIB1ASMSRC is relative to libgcc/config, and the file is call
You still have libgcc source files under gcc/config/ (cr16-libgcc.s,
divmodhi3.c). You still have libgcc-related settings / makefile targets
in gcc/config/cr16/t-cr16.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> Ping 5: For review
>
> Can someone please review the modified patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01985.html
You still have a spurious change to libstdc++-v3/configure without any
corresponding change to a source file generating tha
On 11/04/2011 06:28 AM, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> Ping 5: For review
>
> Can someone please review the modified patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01985.html
>
The port looks to be in good shape.
> +;; Multiply and Accumulate Instructions "smachisi3/umachisi3"
> +(define_ins
Ping 5: For review
Can someone please review the modified patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01985.html
Most of the suggestions made by Richard have been accommodated in the
modified patch. Richard's suggestions can be referred at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00
> +(define_constraint "M"
> + "A unsigned and customized 4-bit immediate."
> + (and (match_code "const_int")
> + (match_test "(IN_RANGE_P (ival, 0, 15) && ((ival != 9) || (ival !=
> 11))) ")))
Logic error: x != 9 || x != 11 => true.
> +/* TARGETM Function Prototypes and forward declara
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Jayant R. Sonar wrote:
> PING 4: For review
> Hi,
> Can someone please review the patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01441.html
Could someone with general back-end expertise look at this? I don't have
the expertise to review whether the back end follow
PING 4: For review
Hi,
Can someone please review the patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01441.html
The previous discussion about the patch can be referred in the earlier
communication below.
Thanks,
Jayant Sonar
= Begin Message ==
-Original Message-
From: S
25 matches
Mail list logo
