On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:55:00AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 12:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I've committed following fix as obvious after testing it with a
> > x86_64->sparc64-linux cross-compiler.
> >
> > 2014-04-22 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR target/60910
> > *
On 04/22/2014 12:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I've committed following fix as obvious after testing it with a
> x86_64->sparc64-linux cross-compiler.
>
> 2014-04-22 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR target/60910
> * config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_init_modes): Pass enum machine_mode
> value
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:51:04PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:02:39PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Sure, we could change this to use mode_size_inline ((enum machine_mode)
> > (MODE))
> > in the macro instead, but I'd say for GCC codebase it is better if we fix
>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:02:39PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Sure, we could change this to use mode_size_inline ((enum machine_mode)
> (MODE))
> in the macro instead, but I'd say for GCC codebase it is better if we fix
> the few users of these macros that pass an int rather than enum machine_m
On 04/21/2014 11:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> but I'd say for GCC codebase it is better if we fix
> the few users of these macros that pass an int rather than enum machine_mode
> to these macros.
I agree. In the aarch64 backend it determined that we were passing a
reg_class_t and not a mode at a
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:15:19AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/21/2014 09:53 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > /home/jbglaw/repos/gcc/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c:4858: error: invalid
> > conversion from ‘int’ to ‘machine_mode’
>
>
> Yes, something has changed recently in the build flags
On 04/21/2014 09:53 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> /home/jbglaw/repos/gcc/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c:4858: error: invalid
> conversion from ‘int’ to ‘machine_mode’
Yes, something has changed recently in the build flags to (I believe) remove
-fpermissive. Quite a few backends are affected by this
On Sat, 2014-04-19 21:54:07 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I noticed that between 704db68e45..f2de45326 (209463..r209495),
> probbaly in e2ec52cad85e (r209484), building for arm-eabi breaks:
For sparc64-linux, things look like this (cf.
http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_
