On 5 September 2013 13:02:29 Kirill Yukhin wrote:
Hello,
On 04 Sep 20:11, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> On 4/09/2013, at 7:43 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> The patch is OK with definitions of OPTION_GLIBC, OPTION_UCLIBC and
OPTION_BIONIC copied verbatim from gcc/config/l
Checked into main trunk:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> uClibc has C99 math support optionally as well as other optional, nonstandard
> feature sets. Your patch does not seem to check (in a cross-compilable
> fashion, of course) if C99 math is supported in libc or not, thus regressing
> on uClibc wi
Hello,
On 04 Sep 20:11, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> On 4/09/2013, at 7:43 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> The patch is OK with definitions of OPTION_GLIBC, OPTION_UCLIBC and
> OPTION_BIONIC copied verbatim from gcc/config/l
Checked into main trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-09/msg00137.html
On 4/09/2013, at 7:43 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> 2013/9/4 Maxim Kuvyrkov :
>> On 23/08/2013, at 1:04 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>>
>>> Ugh.. thanks, you are right. That points to another problem that I
>>> didn't see before:
>>>
>>> 3) *linux* targets that do not append to
Hi Maxim,
2013/9/4 Maxim Kuvyrkov :
> On 23/08/2013, at 1:04 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>
>> Ugh.. thanks, you are right. That points to another problem that I
>> didn't see before:
>>
>> 3) *linux* targets that do not append to tm_p_file (s390x-*-linux* and
>> s390x-ibm-tpf* - your patch addre
On 23/08/2013, at 1:04 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Ugh.. thanks, you are right. That points to another problem that I
> didn't see before:
>
> 3) *linux* targets that do not append to tm_p_file (s390x-*-linux* and
> s390x-ibm-tpf* - your patch addresses that problem correctly) OR
> tmake_file
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 05:04:21PM +0400, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Ugh.. thanks, you are right. That points to another problem that I
> didn't see before:
>
> 3) *linux* targets that do not append to tm_p_file (s390x-*-linux* and
> s390x-ibm-tpf* - your patch addresses that problem correctly) O
Ugh.. thanks, you are right. That points to another problem that I
didn't see before:
3) *linux* targets that do not append to tm_p_file (s390x-*-linux* and
s390x-ibm-tpf* - your patch addresses that problem correctly) OR
tmake_file (bfin*-linux-uclibc* or crisv32-*-linux* | cris-*-linux*)
(btw b
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:21:32PM +0400, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> I'm sorry for that. The following patch cured my build of those
> targets; it is also preserving the initial presence of c99. There were
> plenty of targets that were changed by my patch, I hope this time I
> didn't miss anything
Hi, there are still a couple of problems with my patch:
The build is broken for the following targets:
1) *linux* targets that do not include config/linux.h in their tm.h
(e.g alpha-linux, ppc64-linux etc). For them we have:
../../../../gcc/gcc/config/linux-android.c: In function ‘bool
linux_andr
Alexander Ivchenko writes:
> Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
>
> I updated the patch:
>
> 1) The function name as a second argument in libc_has_function target
> hook was removed - was not usefull so far.
> 2) By using contrib/config-list.mk (thanks for the hint - great tool!)
> and analysin
> This is OK, with function_gnu removed (nothing appears to use it), if no
> OS port maintainers object to the changes for their OSes within the next
> week.
Hello,
Week is over.
Comitted to MT: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-08/msg00447.html
--
Thanks, K
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
>
> I updated the patch:
>
> 1) The function name as a second argument in libc_has_function target
> hook was removed - was not usefull so far.
> 2) By using contrib/config-list.mk (thanks for the hint - great
Just to confirm that the patch successfully regtested on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
thanks,
Alexander
2013/7/29 Alexander Ivchenko :
> 2013/7/28 Michael Eager :
>> On 07/27/13 15:18, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
>>>
>>> I updated the patch:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
2013/7/28 Michael Eager :
> On 07/27/13 15:18, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
>>
>> I updated the patch:
>
>
>>
>> 2013/7/9 Joseph S. Myers :
>
>
>>>
>>> * It looks rather like microblaze*-*-* don't use elfos.h, so meaning
>>> semantics aren't preserved for tho
On 07/27/13 15:18, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments.
I updated the patch:
2013/7/9 Joseph S. Myers :
* It looks rather like microblaze*-*-* don't use elfos.h, so meaning
semantics aren't preserved for those (non-Linux) targets either. Now, I
don't know if th
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 4.8 is now branched, lets come back to the discussion that we had
> before. I updated the patch a little
> bit since we now have linux-protos.h and linux-android.c files.
>
> I tried to preserve the avaiability of c99 for all targets, but
> I don't see how a target hook is required for the command-line idea.
> Targets already have a perfectly working way of changing the default
> of a command-line option.
That's true.. sorry, my bad.
Anyway, could somebody take a look at the patch itself?
--Alexander
>> 2013/4/23 Alexander Ivc
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While discussing the issue with the command line option for sincos here:
> http://gcc.1065356.n5.nabble.com/PATCH-bionic-Add-foptimize-sincos-tp940918.html
>
> Richard wrote:
>> I'd rather think about a way to specify, for all k
Hi,
While discussing the issue with the command line option for sincos here:
http://gcc.1065356.n5.nabble.com/PATCH-bionic-Add-foptimize-sincos-tp940918.html
Richard wrote:
> I'd rather think about a way to specify, for all known builtins, whether GCC
> should generate calls to such function wher
*ping*
thanks
Alexander
2013/3/28 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Hi,
>
> 4.8 is now branched, lets come back to the discussion that we had
> before. I updated the patch a little
> bit since we now have linux-protos.h and linux-android.c files.
>
> I tried to preserve the avaiability of c99 for all target
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you very much for your input! Please, take a look at the updated
> version:
> I fixed coding style, moved documentation for TARGET_LIBC_HAS_FUNCTION
> to target.def.
> Removed TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS and TARGET_HAS_SINCOS and all their
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Could you please take a look at the attached patch that implements
> the target libc_has_function hook? I didn't change so far the default presence
> of c99, but rather tried to preserve the current behaviour of
> TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS.
It looks lik
Hello!
Could you please take a look at the attached patch that implements
the target libc_has_function hook? I didn't change so far the default presence
of c99, but rather tried to preserve the current behaviour of
TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS.
Thank you,
Alexander
2012/12/1 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Fri,
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
> If you want to split TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS then split it properly,
> don't add TARGET_HAS_BIONIC to the selection.
>
> Joseph may provide some guidance here.
My suggested interface would be a target hook such as
targetm.libc_has_function, taking two a
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Bionic has the support of almost all built-in functions from C99 iso
> standard except for only complex math functions.
> (I assume because bionic wants to be as small as possible and nobody
> wants to do complex arithmetic on Android).
26 matches
Mail list logo
