On 07/01/2016 03:57 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
Do I need to re-submit, or can I take the above as approved-with-
that-change?
Ok with that change.
Bernd
>>> On 01.07.16 at 15:44, wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 03:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.07.16 at 15:36, wrote:
>
>>> Looks ok, except why the empty dg-options string in the testcase?
>>
>> Because I've seen in it that way in various other test cases (and
>> yes, yet others don't have it). I ha
On 07/01/2016 03:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.07.16 at 15:36, wrote:
Looks ok, except why the empty dg-options string in the testcase?
Because I've seen in it that way in various other test cases (and
yes, yet others don't have it). I had to decide for one of the
variants, and if it's no
>>> On 01.07.16 at 15:36, wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 10:21 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Just like gas, which has recently learned to reject such initializers,
>> gcc shouldn't accept such either.
>> ---
>> v2: Use dg-require-named-sections.
>>
>> gcc/
>> 2016-07-01 Jan Beulich
>>
>> * varasm.c (g
On 07/01/2016 10:21 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
Just like gas, which has recently learned to reject such initializers,
gcc shouldn't accept such either.
---
v2: Use dg-require-named-sections.
gcc/
2016-07-01 Jan Beulich
* varasm.c (get_variable_section): Validate initializer in
na
