On 08/23/2011 05:33 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Use __x86_64__ instead of __LP64__.
>
> * config/x86/tls.h: Use __x86_64__ instead of __LP64__.
> Add X32 support.
> * config/x86/sjlj.S: Same.
Ok.
At some point we really should merge from mainline, so that we
can test th
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:44 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> Use __x86_64__ instead of __LP64__ in setjmp/longjmp and TLS
>> definitions.
>>
>> H.J.: Is that sufficient for x32, or do we need entirely different code?
>> If so, can you please provide
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 14:42 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/22/2011 02:42 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > Use __x86_64__ instead of __LP64__ in setjmp/longjmp and TLS
> > definitions.
> >
> > H.J.: Is that sufficient for x32, or do we need entirely different code?
> > If so, can you please p
On 08/22/2011 02:42 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Use __x86_64__ instead of __LP64__ in setjmp/longjmp and TLS
> definitions.
>
> H.J.: Is that sufficient for x32, or do we need entirely different code?
> If so, can you please provide the required changes?
The SJLJ part should be ok for x32.
The T
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Use __x86_64__ instead of __LP64__ in setjmp/longjmp and TLS
> definitions.
>
> H.J.: Is that sufficient for x32, or do we need entirely different code?
> If so, can you please provide the required changes?
>
I need to take a look.
Thanks.
Use __x86_64__ instead of __LP64__ in setjmp/longjmp and TLS
definitions.
H.J.: Is that sufficient for x32, or do we need entirely different code?
If so, can you please provide the required changes?
Otherwise, OK for branch?
commit 5337bae3f70d53e463d09e8d6806826876b0da8a
Author: Torvald Riegel
