On 3/13/23 11:57, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
On 1/24/23 05:24, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
I have changed the patch.
Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
scan-assembler-symbol-section to match.
Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
>> On 1/24/23 05:24, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
>>> Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
>>> I have changed the patch.
>>> Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
>>> scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I believe it is because the
>>>
> On 1/24/23 05:24, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
>> Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
>> I have changed the patch.
>> Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
>> scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I believe it is because the
>> .section and .global entries order is reversed i
On 1/24/23 05:24, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
I have changed the patch.
Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I believe it is because the
.section and .global entries order is reversed in this targe
[PING]
Cupertino Miranda writes:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Please, please, give me some feedback on this one.
> I just don't want to have to keep asking you for time on this small
> pending patches that I also have to keep track on.
>
> I realized your committed the other one. Thank you !
>
> Best regards
Hi Jeff,
Please, please, give me some feedback on this one.
I just don't want to have to keep asking you for time on this small
pending patches that I also have to keep track on.
I realized your committed the other one. Thank you !
Best regards,
Cupertino
Cupertino Miranda writes:
> PING !!
PING !
Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Can you please confirm if the patch is Ok?
>
> Thanks,
> Cupertino
>
>> Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
>>
>>> Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
>>> I have changed the patch.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately in case of
Hi Jeff,
Can you please confirm if the patch is Ok?
Thanks,
Cupertino
> Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
>
>> Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
>> I have changed the patch.
>>
>> Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
>> scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I
Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
> Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
> I have changed the patch.
>
> Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
> scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I believe it is because the
> .section and .global entries order is reversed in th
Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
I have changed the patch.
Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I believe it is because the
.section and .global entries order is reversed in this target.
Patch in inlined below. looking forward to
On 12/7/22 08:45, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
placement
Cupertino Miranda writes:
>> On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
>>> The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
>>> SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
>>> placement of
PING PING
Cupertino Miranda writes:
> Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
>
>> gentle ping
>>
>> Cupertino Miranda writes:
>>
On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
> The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the defaul
Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
> gentle ping
>
> Cupertino Miranda writes:
>
>>> On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
SELECT_SECTION hook
gentle ping
Cupertino Miranda writes:
>> On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
>>> The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
>>> SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
>>>
> On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
>> The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
>> SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
>> placement of `const volatile' objects.
>> Ho
On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
placement of `const volatile' objects.
However, the f
This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
placement of `const volatile' objects.
However, the following targets use target-specific selection functions
and the
18 matches
Mail list logo
