On Wed, 2012-12-19 15:04:02 +0100, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On 19/12/12 09:53, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> are the ARM parts of the patch below ok for mainline?
> >>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Sorry for the delay.
>
> I t
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 19/12/12 09:53, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> are the ARM parts of the patch below ok for mainline?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Sorry for the delay.
>
> I think this brok
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 19/12/12 09:53, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> are the ARM parts of the patch below ok for mainline?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> Sorry for the delay.
I think this broke bootstrap on x86_64:
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/config/i386/
On 19/12/12 09:53, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
Hi,
are the ARM parts of the patch below ok for mainline?
Yes.
Sorry for the delay.
R.
I did a compile test with a cross.
Bye,
-Andreas-
Original Message
Subject: [PATCH] Bugfix: Additional parameter for canonicalize comparis
Hi,
are the ARM parts of the patch below ok for mainline?
I did a compile test with a cross.
Bye,
-Andreas-
Original Message
Subject: [PATCH] Bugfix: Additional parameter for canonicalize comparison
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:23:14 +0100
From: Andreas Krebbel
To: rearn...@ar
