On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:04:15PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > One thing I've noticed that's odd is that gcc -mfdpic -fPIC produces
> > different (less efficient) code from just gcc -mfdpic, which seems
> > wrong, but agrees wi
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:49:19PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:53:45AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wr
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:53:45AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >
> > > > So if __fpscr_values was the only reason for patc
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:04:15PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > One thing I've noticed that's odd is that gcc -mfdpic -fPIC produces
> > different (less efficient) code from just gcc -mfdpic, which seems
> > wrong, but agrees wi
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> One thing I've noticed that's odd is that gcc -mfdpic -fPIC produces
> different (less efficient) code from just gcc -mfdpic, which seems
> wrong, but agrees with sh.c which has a number of checks for flag_pic
> not matched with a TARGE
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:53:45AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> >
> > > So if __fpscr_values was the only reason for patch 1/3 in the FDPIC
> > > patchset, I think we can safely drop it. And p
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > So if __fpscr_values was the only reason for patch 1/3 in the FDPIC
> > patchset, I think we can safely drop it. And patch 2/3 was already
> > committed, so 3/3, the one I was originally lo
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> So if __fpscr_values was the only reason for patch 1/3 in the FDPIC
> patchset, I think we can safely drop it. And patch 2/3 was already
> committed, so 3/3, the one I was originally looking at, seems to be
> all we need. It was approved at the time, so I'l
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 05:05:35PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 07:59:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> >
> > > Also, according to Joseph Myers, there was some unresolved
> > > disagreement that stalled (and eventually sunk) the old
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 07:59:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > Also, according to Joseph Myers, there was some unresolved
> > disagreement that stalled (and eventually sunk) the old patch, so if
> > anyone's still around who has objections to it, could
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> Also, according to Joseph Myers, there was some unresolved
> disagreement that stalled (and eventually sunk) the old patch, so if
> anyone's still around who has objections to it, could you speak up and
> let me know what's wrong? Kaz Kojima seems to have a
I've started work on reviving the FDPIC support patch for the SH
target, which was proposed upstream in 2010 then abandoned:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01464.html
Right now I'm in the process of determining what parts can be applied
as-is to current gcc, and what parts need to
12 matches
Mail list logo
