Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-10-04 Thread Richard Sandiford
Uros Bizjak writes: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Uros Bizjak writes: >>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Vladimir Makarov >>> wrote: >>> >>> I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix >>> PR61360 >>> >>> https://gcc.gn

Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-10-04 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Uros Bizjak writes: >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Vladimir Makarov >> wrote: >> >> I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix >> PR61360 >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6

Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-10-04 Thread Richard Sandiford
Uros Bizjak writes: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix > PR61360 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360 > > The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested (w/

Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-10-02 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix PR61360 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360 The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested (w/wo -march=amdfam10) on x8

Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-10-02 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 2014-10-02 7:31 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2014.10.02 at 09:17 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2014.09.26 at 16:31 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix PR61360 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360 The pa

Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-10-02 Thread Markus Trippelsdorf
On 2014.10.02 at 09:17 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2014.09.26 at 16:31 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix PR61360 > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360 > > > > The patch was successfully bootstrappe

Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-10-02 Thread Markus Trippelsdorf
On 2014.09.26 at 16:31 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix PR61360 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360 > > The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested (w/wo > -march=amdfam10) on x86/x86-64. > > Is it ok t

Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-09-28 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix PR61360 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360 > > The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested (w/wo -march=amdfam10) on > x86/x86-64. > > Is it ok

Re: RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-09-27 Thread Richard Sandiford
Hi Vlad, Vladimir Makarov writes: > I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix PR61360 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360 > > The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested (w/wo > -march=amdfam10) on x86/x86-64. > > Is it ok to commit to trunk? >

RFA: one more version of the patch for PR61360

2014-09-26 Thread Vladimir Makarov
I guess we achieved the consensus about the following patch to fix PR61360 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360 The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested (w/wo -march=amdfam10) on x86/x86-64. Is it ok to commit to trunk? 2014-09-26 Vladimir Makarov PR targe