On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 09:57 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> I'll echo Nick's comments about arm asm in a common test.
>> There's no need to have anything but __asm__(""); there.
>>
>> Ok with that change.
>
> Thanks! Here's the version I comm
On 07/25/2012 09:57 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> I'll echo Nick's comments about arm asm in a common test.
> There's no need to have anything but __asm__(""); there.
>
> Ok with that change.
Thanks! Here's the version I committed.
-Sandra
2012-07-25 Sandra Loosemore
Paul B
On 07/24/2012 09:40 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> PR target/53633
>
> gcc/
> * target.def (warn_func_return): New hook.
> * doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_WARN_FUNC_RETURN): New hook.
> * doc/tm.texi: Regenerate.
> * doc/sourcebuild.texi (Effective-Target Keywords): Doc
Hi Sandra,
One suggestion - rather than having architecture specific test files,
why not just have a single generic test case with a new
dg-require-naked-attribute qualifier. That way the mcore port would be
tested as well as the ARM port.
Something like this? The code part of the patch is un
On 07/24/2012 05:18 AM, nick clifton wrote:
> Hi Sandra,
>
>> I've updated the patch
>
> One suggestion - rather than having architecture specific test files,
> why not just have a single generic test case with a new
> dg-require-naked-attribute qualifier. That way the mcore port would be
> te
Hi Sandra,
I've updated the patch
One suggestion - rather than having architecture specific test files,
why not just have a single generic test case with a new
dg-require-naked-attribute qualifier. That way the mcore port would be
tested as well as the ARM port.
I'm not set up to test o
This is a revised version of Paul Brook's patch from two years ago:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01088.html
I've updated the patch per the review comments from that time, and also
extended it to handle a similar warning from the C++ front end.
I have so far only tested this on a
