On 9/11/20 5:35 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I guess this means we withdraw the patch. Thanks again!
The original motivation for this was a failing fsf-testsuite-gcc test on
vxworks7. If the patch is wrong, then I suppose the alternative is to
modify the test, or else kill it?
On Sep 11, 2020, Alan Modra wrote:
> I also thought it reasonable to error on an explicit -mcmodel=medium
> or -mcmodel=large with either of -mminimal-toc or -mno-minimal-toc,
> since the toc options really are specific to small model code. Why
> change that?
Thanks. I think the key piece of i
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:43:50AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Could you please shed any light as to the intent, so that we can sort
> out the logic that will implement it?
The history goes back to 2003 commit 9739c90c8d where a ppc64-linux
host built most of gcc with -mminimal-toc due to toc/
Hello, Segher,
On Jul 9, 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> The problem it addresses is that the current checking only tests for
>> existence not for an incompatible/compatible setting.
>> Currently both are reported as incompatible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549760
Hi!
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 04:02:34PM -0700, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
> The attached patch is proposed for rs6000/linux64.h.
(Please use inline patches if at all possible. For example, your
replies left out the patch already).
> The problem it addresses is that the current checking only tests for
Greetings,
The attached patch is proposed for rs6000/linux64.h.
The problem it addresses is that the current checking only tests for
existence not for an incompatible/compatible setting.
For example:
$ powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc -mcmodel=medium -mminimal-toc foo.c
is an incompatible set of swit
