On 18/02/16 13:28, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18 February 2016 at 14:20, Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Christophe,
Could you modify your new testcases, such that they call
check_effective_target_arm_arm_ok ?
Good idea - done.
I'm just realizing that we currently generate arm_arch_vX_ok
for X >=4
On 18 February 2016 at 14:20, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
>> Could you modify your new testcases, such that they call
>> check_effective_target_arm_arm_ok ?
>
> Good idea - done.
>
>> I'm just realizing that we currently generate arm_arch_vX_ok
>> for X >=4 only. Maybe you should also a
Hi Christophe,
> Could you modify your new testcases, such that they call
> check_effective_target_arm_arm_ok ?
Good idea - done.
> I'm just realizing that we currently generate arm_arch_vX_ok
> for X >=4 only. Maybe you should also add v3?
Possibly. I am not at all sure how important v3 suppo
On 16 February 2016 at 18:19, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Richard, Hi Ramana,
>
> The ARM backend has some problems compiling for the old ARMv3
> architecture. See:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
>
> for an example of this. v3 is very old now, and I am not sure how
Hi Richard, Hi Ramana,
The ARM backend has some problems compiling for the old ARMv3
architecture. See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
for an example of this. v3 is very old now, and I am not sure how
much interest there is in continuing to support it, but I am
