On 13 December 2016 at 12:18, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
> On 13/12/16 10:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 13 December 2016 at 10:54, Thomas Preudhomme
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/12/16 21:17, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for working on this,
On 12
On 13/12/16 10:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 13 December 2016 at 10:54, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
On 12/12/16 21:17, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for working on this,
On 12 December 2016 at 18:52, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
Hi,
The logic to make -mthumb optional for Thumb-only
On 13 December 2016 at 10:54, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
> On 12/12/16 21:17, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> Thanks for working on this,
>>
>>
>> On 12 December 2016 at 18:52, Thomas Preudhomme
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The logic to make -mthumb optional for Thumb-only devices is
On 12/12/16 21:17, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for working on this,
On 12 December 2016 at 18:52, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
Hi,
The logic to make -mthumb optional for Thumb-only devices is only executed
when no -marm or -mthumb is given on the command-line. This includes
configu
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for working on this,
On 12 December 2016 at 18:52, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The logic to make -mthumb optional for Thumb-only devices is only executed
> when no -marm or -mthumb is given on the command-line. This includes
> configuring GCC with --with-mode= because t
Hi,
The logic to make -mthumb optional for Thumb-only devices is only executed when
no -marm or -mthumb is given on the command-line. This includes configuring GCC
with --with-mode= because this makes the option to be passed before any others.
The optional_mthumb-* testcases are skipped when -
