On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> You forgot to tell us how the patch tested...
Right. It's a pretty obviously harmless change. I tested that the
configure check passes with binutils-2.22, and eyeball'd a -S compile of a
trivial function calling __builtin_trap() to see it u
Hello!
> Non-ancient assemblers support the "ud2" mnemonic, so there is no need
> to emit the literal opcode as data.
>
> OK for trunk and 4.8?
You forgot to tell us how the patch tested...
> gcc/
> 2014-02-13 Roland McGrath
>
> * configure.ac (HAVE_AS_IX86_UD2): New test for 'ud2' mnemonic.
Did you read the patch? It uses an empirical configure check to
discover if the assembler does in fact support ud2.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Non-ancient assemblers support the "ud2" mnemonic, so there is no need
>> to emit the literal opcode as data.
>>
>> OK for trunk and 4.8?
>
> I changed this to use .word due to openbs
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Non-ancient assemblers support the "ud2" mnemonic, so there is no need
> to emit the literal opcode as data.
>
> OK for trunk and 4.8?
I changed this to use .word due to openbsd3.1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01347.html .
Non-ancient assemblers support the "ud2" mnemonic, so there is no need
to emit the literal opcode as data.
OK for trunk and 4.8?
Thanks,
Roland
gcc/
2014-02-13 Roland McGrath
* configure.ac (HAVE_AS_IX86_UD2): New test for 'ud2' mnemonic.
* configure: Regenerated.
*
