Hi James,
>> OK to apply ?
>
> OK, thanks.
Thanks - applied.
>>> Note that this patch would expose a bug in
>>> common/config/aarch64/aarch64-common.c
>>> where there's a thinko in the handling of OPT_momit_leaf_frame_pointer.
>>> That's my bad and I'll propose a patch for it soon.
>
> I don'
On 10/03/16 15:23, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 01:12:16PM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
This is missing a second hunk from the patch you attached in the PR that I
think is necessary
for this to work (setting to x_flag_omit_frame_pointer)...
Doh! Silly me - there
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 01:12:16PM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Kyrill,
>
> > This is missing a second hunk from the patch you attached in the PR that I
> > think is necessary
> > for this to work (setting to x_flag_omit_frame_pointer)...
>
> Doh! Silly me - there was a snafu restoring the p
Hi Kyrill,
> This is missing a second hunk from the patch you attached in the PR that I
> think is necessary
> for this to work (setting to x_flag_omit_frame_pointer)...
Doh! Silly me - there was a snafu restoring the patch after I had reverted it
in order to
check that the pre- and post- patc
Hi Nick,
On 04/03/16 13:44, Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Markus, Hi Richard,
PR 70044 reports a problem with the AArch64 backend. With LTO enabled
the function aarch64_override_options_after_change can be called more
than once for the same function. If only leaf frame pointers were
bein
Hi Markus, Hi Richard,
PR 70044 reports a problem with the AArch64 backend. With LTO enabled
the function aarch64_override_options_after_change can be called more
than once for the same function. If only leaf frame pointers were
being omitted originally, then the first call will set
fl
