On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:08 AM Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> Remove SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS given it's confusing, badly named,
> badly documented and used incorrectly. Although most targets
> define it as 1, there are several targets which confuse it
> (based on comments next to it) and set it to 0 since
On 11/17/2017 12:01 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Remove SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS given it's confusing, badly named,
> badly documented and used incorrectly. Although most targets
> define it as 1, there are several targets which confuse it
> (based on comments next to it) and set it to 0 since the name
>
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:01:21 PST (-0800), wilco.dijks...@arm.com wrote:
Remove SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS given it's confusing, badly named,
badly documented and used incorrectly. Although most targets
define it as 1, there are several targets which confuse it
(based on comments next to it) and set it to
If removing a target macro, it should be poisoned in system.h.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Remove SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS given it's confusing, badly named,
badly documented and used incorrectly. Although most targets
define it as 1, there are several targets which confuse it
(based on comments next to it) and set it to 0 since the name
obviously implies it should be 0 when byte accesses are
