* Jeff Law [2016-11-29 10:35:50 -0700]:
> On 11/29/2016 07:02 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]:
> >
> > > On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > > * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09
> > > > +0100]:
> > > >
> > > > > On 20 November 2016 at
On 11/29/2016 07:02 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]:
On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
So, your
* Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]:
> On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
> >
> > > On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > So, your new tes
On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
After a little digging I think the problem might be tha
* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
> On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess
> > wrote:
> >>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
> >>
> >> After a little digging I think the problem might be that
> >> -freorder-blocks-an
On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess
> wrote:
>>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
>>
>> After a little digging I think the problem might be that
>> -freorder-blocks-and-partition is not supported on arm.
>>
>> This should be detec
On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
>
> After a little digging I think the problem might be that
> -freorder-blocks-and-partition is not supported on arm.
>
> This should be detected as the new tests include:
>
>/* { dg-require-effe
* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-18 13:21:50 +0100]:
> On 16 November 2016 at 23:12, Andrew Burgess
> wrote:
> > * Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
> >
> >> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
> >> wrote:
> >> > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
> >>
On 16 November 2016 at 23:12, Andrew Burgess
wrote:
> * Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
>
>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
>> wrote:
>> > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
>> > them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
>> >
>> >
On 11/16/2016 03:12 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
wrote:
My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
/* { dg-final-use { scan-as
* Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
> wrote:
> > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
> > them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
> >
> >/* { dg-final-use { scan-assembler "\.section\[\t
> > \]
On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
wrote:
> My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
> them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
>
>/* { dg-final-use { scan-assembler "\.section\[\t
> \]*\.text\.unlikely\[\\n\\r\]+\[\t \]*\.size\[\t \]*foo\.col
* Bernd Schmidt [2016-11-03 13:01:32 +0100]:
> On 09/14/2016 03:00 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
> > correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
> > think things currently work. I'm sure most people readin
On 09/14/2016 03:00 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will
already know this, but hopefully, if my underst
* Jeff Law [2016-10-28 09:58:14 -0600]:
> On 09/15/2016 08:24 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
> > > > co
On 09/15/2016 08:24 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
thi
* Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
> > correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
> > think things currently work. I'm sure
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
> correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
> think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will
> already know this, but
In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will
already know this, but hopefully, if my understanding is wrong someone
can point it out.
I've
19 matches
Mail list logo
