Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-06-21 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On 10 April 2012 10:11, Ramana Radhakrishnan > wrote: > >>> The patch with correct configure output is ok. > >> > >> Thanks - this is what I committed. > > > > Is this something that can be considered for backporting to release > > branches ? Thi

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-06-20 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 10 April 2012 10:11, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> The patch with correct configure output is ok. >> >> Thanks - this is what I committed. > > Is this something that can be considered for backporting to release > branches ? This patch technically doesn't fix a regression but brings > in line

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-04-10 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> The patch with correct configure output is ok. > > Thanks - this is what I committed. Is this something that can be considered for backporting to release branches ? This patch technically doesn't fix a regression but brings in line behaviour of the normal bootstrap for %gnu_unique_object ? htt

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-15 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 14 March 2012 15:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 14/03/2012 16:37, Ramana Radhakrishnan ha scritto: >> Empirically I spotted this odd behaviour  with >> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE and comments - Attached are the 2 alternate >> patches that I tried and the difference in the configure scripts >> themsel

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-14 Thread Andreas Schwab
Paolo Bonzini writes: > Yes, the # comment is actually part of the macro argument. If you want > to write a "real" comment (i.e. at the m4 rather than shell level) use > "dnl" instead of "#". Actually both are part of the macro argument and act like comment introducers at the m4 level, but they

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-14 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 14/03/2012 16:37, Ramana Radhakrishnan ha scritto: > Empirically I spotted this odd behaviour with > gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE and comments - Attached are the 2 alternate > patches that I tried and the difference in the configure scripts > themselves . I am no m4 expert but it does look like the m4

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-14 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 12 March 2012 18:10, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Looks OK to me. I was about to commit this into my svn checkout and then realized the patch p4 didn't have the changes to configure - So I regenerated it again and then began a journey into the depths of m4 and autoconf for a bit before I gave up. Emp

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-12 Thread DJ Delorie
Looks OK to me.

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-11 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 10 March 2012 00:39, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> > Ping -  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00549.html >> >> And now really add Paolo and DJ. > > +   [.type foo, '$target_type_format_char'gnu_unique_object],, > > This un-quoting looks incorrect if you don't know what's going on > under t

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-09 Thread DJ Delorie
> > Ping -  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00549.html > > And now really add Paolo and DJ. + [.type foo, '$target_type_format_char'gnu_unique_object],, This un-quoting looks incorrect if you don't know what's going on under the hood, but I don't see a clean way around it. A sui

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-09 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Ping -  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00549.html And now really add Paolo and DJ. Ramana > > regards, > Ramana > > >> >> regards, >> Ramana >> >> >> 2012-03-07  Ramana Radhakrishnan   >> >>       * config.gcc (target_type_format_char): New. Document it. Set it for >>         arm

Re: [Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object

2012-03-09 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
> > Ok ? Adjusting subject line and adding build machinery maintainer to comment - Ping - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00549.html regards, Ramana > > regards, > Ramana > > > 2012-03-07  Ramana Radhakrishnan   > >       * config.gcc (target_type_format_char): New. Document it.

[Patch ARM/ configury] Add fall-back check for gnu_unique_object - Default to this for arm-linux-gnueabi

2012-03-08 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
Hi, While investigating a report for odd behaviour with a C++ program, I discovered that the automatic checking for gnu_unique_object is broken during bootstrap for arm-linux-gnueabi targets because on ARM '@' is a comment character for the assembler. I do realize this can be worked around with t