On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> This caused:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49545
>
> Sorry for the breakage. I should obviously have tested on x86_64 as well.
>
> To recap, there are (at least) two concepts of what "the addres
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> This caused:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49545
Sorry for the breakage. I should obviously have tested on x86_64 as well.
To recap, there are (at least) two concepts of what "the address of X"
can mean. It can mean (a) the address at which X is actually l
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> This patch fixes PR 49169, where GCC is incorrectly optimising away
>> a test for whether a function is Thumb rather than ARM. The patch
>> was posted by Richard in the PR:
>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch fixes PR 49169, where GCC is incorrectly optimising away
> a test for whether a function is Thumb rather than ARM. The patch
> was posted by Richard in the PR:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49169
>
> See t
This patch fixes PR 49169, where GCC is incorrectly optimising away
a test for whether a function is Thumb rather than ARM. The patch
was posted by Richard in the PR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49169
See the PR for a discussion about whether a target hook is better
(or not,
