On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:04:17AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Let's try this on trunk and hopefully it can be included in the
>> release candidate.
>
> Committed, subversion id 185146.
Ok for the branch.
Thanks,
Richard.
> --
> Mich
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:04:17AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Let's try this on trunk and hopefully it can be included in the
> release candidate.
Committed, subversion id 185146.
--
Michael Meissner, IBM
5 Technology Place Drive, M/S 2757, Westford, MA 01886-3141, USA
meiss...@linux.vnet.ib
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> David noticed that I set default_cpu twice in my previous patch. This patch
> fixes that, and also updates the ChangeLog message to indicate fixing some
> tests for using >= 0 instead of > 0, since processor 0 is a valid index. I've
> boo
David noticed that I set default_cpu twice in my previous patch. This patch
fixes that, and also updates the ChangeLog message to indicate fixing some
tests for using >= 0 instead of > 0, since processor 0 is a valid index. I've
bootstrapped both 4.7 and 4.8 with this new patch. Is it ok to inst
David discovered that there was a thinko in the logic of the powerpc setting
for the default tuning option. In theory, the compiler was supposed to use
PROCESSOR_DEFAULT for 32-bit targets and PROCESSOR_DEFAULT64 for 64-bit targets
if no cpu or tuning option was used in configuring the compiler.
