On 27/06/11 19:31, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/24/2011 02:59 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 18/06/11 20:02, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> I couldn't find anything terribly tricky about the conversion.
>>>
>>> The existing push_mult pattern would service thumb1 with just
>>> a tweak or two to
On 06/24/2011 02:59 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 18/06/11 20:02, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> I couldn't find anything terribly tricky about the conversion.
>>
>> The existing push_mult pattern would service thumb1 with just
>> a tweak or two to the memory predicate and the length.
>>
>> The exi
On 18/06/11 20:02, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I couldn't find anything terribly tricky about the conversion.
>
> The existing push_mult pattern would service thumb1 with just
> a tweak or two to the memory predicate and the length.
>
> The existing emit_multi_reg_push wasn't set up to handle a
>
Ping. This will shortly be holding up dwarf2 maintenance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01398.html
r~
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I couldn't find anything terribly tricky about the conversion.
>
> The existing push_mult pattern would service thumb1 with just
> a tweak or two to the memory predicate and the length.
>
> The existing emit_multi_reg_push wasn't set up t
I couldn't find anything terribly tricky about the conversion.
The existing push_mult pattern would service thumb1 with just
a tweak or two to the memory predicate and the length.
The existing emit_multi_reg_push wasn't set up to handle a
complete switch of registers for unwind info. I thought a
