On 08/01/2016 10:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
What's the motivation for supporting -fno-toplevel-reorder anyway? That's
practically just a legacy mode as far as I know.
It's for code that uses toplevel asms in ways for which it matters where
they appear
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> What's the motivation for supporting -fno-toplevel-reorder anyway? That's
> practically just a legacy mode as far as I know.
It's for code that uses toplevel asms in ways for which it matters where
they appear in relation to functions in the .s file, o
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/22/16 11:19, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> > I hope I've satisfactorily explained the failures you've pointed out (thanks
> > for the data). I think I should leave the choice of what to do next (revert
> > the patch or leave it in and install fixu
On 07/22/16 11:19, Alexander Monakov wrote:
I hope I've satisfactorily explained the failures you've pointed out (thanks for
the data). I think I should leave the choice of what to do next (revert the
patch or leave it in and install fixups where appropriate) up to you?
Please revert the nvpt
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> What's the motivation for supporting -fno-toplevel-reorder anyway? That's
> practically just a legacy mode as far as I know.
I've made the prerequisite middle-end patch after noticing that libgcc
explicitly enables -fno-toplevel-reorder (and that was bre
On 07/22/2016 05:19 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
I hope I've satisfactorily explained the failures you've pointed out (thanks for
the data). I think I should leave the choice of what to do next (revert the
patch or leave it in and install fixups where appropriate) up to you?
What's the motivat
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hmm. In an offloading configuration I see the following regression:
First of all: sorry about this (bah, this is fairly embarrassing, while I forgot
to check offloading, I should have seen the fallout in check-c testing; might
have tested the wrong so
Hi!
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:27:56 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/19/16 14:34, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > I've recently committed a middle-end patch that adds handling of undefined
> > variables (that the nvptx backend needs) under -fno-toplevel-reorder (svn
> > rev.
> > 238371). With tha
On 07/19/16 14:34, Alexander Monakov wrote:
Hi,
I've recently committed a middle-end patch that adds handling of undefined
variables (that the nvptx backend needs) under -fno-toplevel-reorder (svn rev.
238371). With that change, it's no longer necessary to implicitly enable
-ftoplevel-reorder i
Hi,
I've recently committed a middle-end patch that adds handling of undefined
variables (that the nvptx backend needs) under -fno-toplevel-reorder (svn rev.
238371). With that change, it's no longer necessary to implicitly enable
-ftoplevel-reorder in the backend, and the following patch removes
10 matches
Mail list logo
