> On Jun 29, 2015, at 8:19 AM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>
> Now that this has had a few days sitting on trunk without seeing any
> complaints, would you mind if I backported it to the GCC 5 branch?
I don’t have a problem with that.
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> On Tue, 2015-06-16 10:58:48 +0100, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>> The testcase in this patch, from libgcc, causes an ICE in the Vax
>> build.
> [...]
>> As far as I know, reload is going to get rid of these SUBREGs
>> for
On Nov 23, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port
> and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through
> the entire patch.This patch covers the vax port.
>
> Ok?
OK.
On Sep 20, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> VAX GAS has a glitch when generating a 64bit value from a small
> negative integer, which isn't properly sign-extended. (I'll see if
> this can be fixed without breaking other cases.)
>
> However, GCC should work around this by si
On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:21 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-31 18:34:26 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw
> wrote:
>> We've seen ICEs while outputting an operand (not even the excessive
>> CISC of a VAX could do that), which should be fixed by this patch:
>>
>> 2013-07-31 Jan-Benedict Gla
On Sep 29, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> The following proposed patch disables setting, saving and restoring
>> the VRSAVE register on all targets except Darwin.
>>
>> VRSAVE was removed from the AIX ABI and was suppose to have been
>> removed from the PPC SVR4 ABI. All recent
On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Do we always have CTZ if we have FFS? Can't there be a target that
>> implements FFS as opcode but not CTZ, so you'd slow down things?
>> Thus, should the transform be conditonal on target support for CTZ
>> or no target support for FFS?
>
> H
