Re: how to build and test uClinux toolchains

2018-11-02 Thread Christophe Lyon
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 16:43, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 19:54, Max Filippov wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:51 AM Christophe Lyon > > wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 at 04:06, Max Filippov wrote: > > > > Probably the easiest way to get all xtensa toolchain part

Re: LRA reload produces invalid insn

2018-11-02 Thread Paul Koning
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > > On 11/1/18 7:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> I'm running the testsuite on the pdp11 target, and I get a failure when >> using LRA that works correctly with the old allocator. The issue is that >> LRA is producing an insn that is invalid (i

Re: LRA reload produces invalid insn

2018-11-02 Thread Peter Bergner
On 11/1/18 10:37 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 11/01/2018 08:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> Is this an LRA bug, or is there something I need to do in the target to >> prevent this happening? > It is hard to say whose code is responsible for this.  It might be a wrong > machine-dependent code or

Re: LRA reload produces invalid insn

2018-11-02 Thread Paul Koning
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Peter Bergner wrote: > > On 11/1/18 10:37 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >> On 11/01/2018 08:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >>> Is this an LRA bug, or is there something I need to do in the target to >>> prevent this happening? >> It is hard to say whose code is responsi

gcc-8-20181102 is now available

2018-11-02 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-8-20181102 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20181102/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-8

Re: dg-add-options ieee ?

2018-11-02 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/31/18 3:27 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Paul, > >>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Rainer Orth >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Paul, >>> Ok, thanks. So adding a dg-skip-if for my target is indeed correct. Will do so. >>> >>> please don't: since this is going to be common, please add a >>> co