On 21-07-14 12:40, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Dominique noticed that the .LC0 check failed on darwin, since the label LC0
is used. This follow-up patch fixes that (and I see now you already Ok-ed
this change).
Furthermore, I've realized from the c
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Dominique noticed that the .LC0 check failed on darwin, since the label LC0
> is used. This follow-up patch fixes that (and I see now you already Ok-ed
> this change).
>
> Furthermore, I've realized from the comments in the PR that for
> sol
On 21-07-14 09:31, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
this patch fixes the problems in test-case
gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c reported in PR 61827. I've removed
the checks for cfi_def_cfa_offset, which were not robust enough for the
different con
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> this patch fixes the problems in test-case
> gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c reported in PR 61827. I've removed
> the checks for cfi_def_cfa_offset, which were not robust enough for the
> different configurations.
>
> Furthermore, I'v
