> The mips*-*-* targets are not building. It looks like the mips reorg
> pass (pass_mips_machine_reorg2) in config/mips/mips.c was not converted
> and/or was not converted correctly.
Likewise for the SPARC targets, because of the same issue. David, could you
take a quick look? Thanks in advanc
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 17:03 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:41 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 07/26/2013 09:04 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
> > > C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subs
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 19:11 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> David Malcolm writes:
> > commit 11d46884e8bd9802b0f528a16b3970b4076fe8a9
> > Author: David Malcolm
> > Date: Tue Aug 6 13:48:59 2013 -0400
> >
> > gcc/
> > * config/mips/mips.c (insert_pass_mips_machine_reorg2): Move
David Malcolm writes:
> commit 11d46884e8bd9802b0f528a16b3970b4076fe8a9
> Author: David Malcolm
> Date: Tue Aug 6 13:48:59 2013 -0400
>
> gcc/
> * config/mips/mips.c (insert_pass_mips_machine_reorg2): Move
> into...
> (mips_option_override): ...here, porting to new C++ API
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 08:16 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 17:03 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > Given all of the above testing I'm reasonably confident that this works.
> > However this is such a large change [1] that there's a non-zero chance
> > of at least one glitch - le
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 17:03 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> Given all of the above testing I'm reasonably confident that this works.
> However this is such a large change [1] that there's a non-zero chance
> of at least one glitch - let me know if you see any breakages.
The mips*-*-* targets are no
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:41 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/26/2013 09:04 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
> > C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subsequent
> > autogenerated part, which is huge.
> [ ... ]
> With t
On 08/02/2013 02:38 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> OK for trunk? (as part of patches 3-6)
Ok.
On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 13:13 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:41 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 07/26/2013 09:04 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
> > > C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subs
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:41 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/26/2013 09:04 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
> > C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subsequent
> > autogenerated part, which is huge.
> [ ... ]
> With t
On 07/26/2013 09:04 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subsequent
autogenerated part, which is huge.
[ ... ]
With the changes from pipeline -> pass_manager this is fine. As is the
On Sun, 2013-07-28 at 10:37 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 11:04 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
> > C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subsequent
> > autogenerated part, which is h
On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 11:04 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> This patch is the hand-written part of the conversion of passes from
> C structs to C++ classes. It does not work without the subsequent
> autogenerated part, which is huge.
>
> Given that the autogenerated part of the conversion is very l
13 matches
Mail list logo
