On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>>> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print
>>> which
>>> accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is
>>> define
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> TARGET_CPU_DEFAULT is left over for 32-bit target before --with-arch=
>> and --with-cpu= were added. Today, -mtune=xxx -march=xxx are
>> always passed to cc1 by GCC driver. If cc1 is run by hand and
>> -mtune=xxx -march=xxx aren't passed to
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print
>> which
>> accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is
>> defined as
>> array with enum target_cpu_default index.
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:03:45PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>
> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
accesses it with enum processor_type index. But c
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>>> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
>>> accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is defined as
>>> array with enum target_cp
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
>> accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is defined as
>> array with enum target_cpu_default index. This patch adds processor
>> names to
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:55 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> cpu_names in i386.c i
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
a
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
>>> accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
>> accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is defined as
>> array with enum target_cpu_default index.
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
> accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is defined as
> array with enum target_cpu_default index. This patch adds processor
> names to processor_target_tab
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
> accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is defined as
> array with enum target_cpu_default index. This patch adds processor
> names to processor_target_tab
Hi,
cpu_names in i386.c is only used by ix86_function_specific_print which
accesses it with enum processor_type index. But cpu_names is defined as
array with enum target_cpu_default index. This patch adds processor
names to processor_target_table and uses processor_target_table instead
of cpu_nam
14 matches
Mail list logo
