Georg-Johann Lay writes:
> On 04.11.2016 06:18, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
>>
>> Georg-Johann Lay writes:
>>> State of matters is that Binutils support is missing, and if I understand
>>> you
>>> correctly, dg-require is not appropriate to factor out availability of such
>>> features?
>>
>> I
On Nov 4, 2016, at 2:35 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
>> .word .L3-(.L2)
>>
>> which seems wrong, given all the other code-gen. I think this has to be
>> gs(.L3)-(gs(.L2)), no? I tried to get binutils to do that for me directly
>> with a .word and it seemed resistant; which is unfortunate.
On 04.11.2016 06:18, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
State of matters is that Binutils support is missing, and if I understand you
correctly, dg-require is not appropriate to factor out availability of such
features?
I'll take a stab at adding the missing binutils suppo
On 04.11.2016 03:48, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:25 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
On 28.10.2016 17:58, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:16 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Now imagine some arithmetic like &&LAB2 - &&LAB1. This might result in
one or two stub addresses, and diff
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
> On 28.10.2016 17:58, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:16 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>>
>>> Now imagine some arithmetic like &&LAB2 - &&LAB1. This might result in
>>> one or two stub addresses, and difference between such addresses is a
>>> complete differe
On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:25 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> On 28.10.2016 17:58, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:16 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>>
>>> Now imagine some arithmetic like &&LAB2 - &&LAB1. This might result in
>>> one or two stub addresses, and difference between such addre
On 28.10.2016 17:58, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:16 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Now imagine some arithmetic like &&LAB2 - &&LAB1. This might result in
one or two stub addresses, and difference between such addresses is a
complete different thing than the difference between the ori
On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:16 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> Now imagine some arithmetic like &&LAB2 - &&LAB1. This might result in one
> or two stub addresses, and difference between such addresses is a complete
> different thing than the difference between the original labels: The result
> mig
On 27.10.2016 12:49, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/27/2016 12:16 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Now imagine some arithmetic like &&LAB2 - &&LAB1. This might result in
one or two stub addresses, and difference between such addresses is a
complete different thing than the difference between the origina
On 10/27/2016 12:16 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Now imagine some arithmetic like &&LAB2 - &&LAB1. This might result in
one or two stub addresses, and difference between such addresses is a
complete different thing than the difference between the original
labels: The result might differ in absol
On 26.10.2016 18:51, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/26/2016 04:46 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
+if { [istarget avr-*-*] } {
+# If the value of a label does not fit into 16 bits, the linker
+# will generate a stub (containing a direct jump) and we end up
+# with the address of the stub
On 10/26/2016 04:46 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
+if { [istarget avr-*-*] } {
+ # If the value of a label does not fit into 16 bits, the linker
+ # will generate a stub (containing a direct jump) and we end up
+ # with the address of the stub instead of the address of the ver
There are targets that support taking values of labels but where any arithmetic
on such values might produce garbage.
This patch introduces new dg-require-effective-target label_offsets which is a
subset of label_values, and adjusts respective test cases to the more
restricted predicate.
Run
13 matches
Mail list logo
