On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:40 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> In both the original patch, and the backport, you're modifying the
> AArch64 options here. I'd expect the edits to be to the AArch32 options
> (these start somewhere around line 15,000).
Yes, I screwed this up. Richard Earnshaw already f
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 01:03:34PM -0700, Jim Wilson wrote:
> # Arch Matches
> Index: gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> ===
> --- gcc/doc/invoke.texi (revision 249025)
> +++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
> @@ -13983,8 +13983,8 @@
On 09/06/17 21:03, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>> Having pondered this over night, I think the lowest risk thing to do,
>> provided it applies cleanly to the gcc-7 branch, is just commit the
>> entire patch on the branch and be done with i
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> Having pondered this over night, I think the lowest risk thing to do,
> provided it applies cleanly to the gcc-7 branch, is just commit the
> entire patch on the branch and be done with it. The risk from removing
> this code is pr
On 24/05/17 17:19, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 24/05/17 17:03, Jim Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>> wrote:
>>> On 24/05/17 15:18, Jim Wilson wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> OK. does this
On 24/05/17 17:03, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>> On 24/05/17 15:18, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>>> wrote:
OK. does this need to go in the gcc-8 changes file?
>>>
>>> Falkor hasn'
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> On 24/05/17 15:18, Jim Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>> wrote:
>>> OK. does this need to go in the gcc-8 changes file?
>>
>> Falkor hasn't shipped yet. I'm dropping features that only
On 24/05/17 15:18, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>> OK. does this need to go in the gcc-8 changes file?
>
> Falkor hasn't shipped yet. I'm dropping features that only existed in
> preproduction NDA hardware, so there isn't anything end us
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> OK. does this need to go in the gcc-8 changes file?
Falkor hasn't shipped yet. I'm dropping features that only existed in
preproduction NDA hardware, so there isn't anything end user visible,
and hence I don't think that it need
On 12/05/17 03:43, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Early steppings had aarch32 support, current steppings don't, so the
> aarch32 support for falkor/qdf24xx needs to be dropped. This mostly
> involves removing falkor/qdf24xx references from the arm port. The
> qdf24xx_extra_costs structure moves from the arm
Early steppings had aarch32 support, current steppings don't, so the
aarch32 support for falkor/qdf24xx needs to be dropped. This mostly
involves removing falkor/qdf24xx references from the arm port. The
qdf24xx_extra_costs structure moves from the arm port to the aarch64
port.
This was tested w
11 matches
Mail list logo
