On Feb 24, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Given the logic of this macro, the text should be
> "!TARGET_CXX_METHOD_MAY_BE_INLINE".
I was thinking just "related to that macro", but yeah, negating it makes
sense.
> OK with that change.
Thanks, here's what I'm checking in.
[PR105224] C++ module
> On 24 Feb 2023, at 10:23, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/02/2023 21:20, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 22/02/2023 19:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2023, Richard
On 23/02/2023 21:20, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Feb 23, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Feb 23, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 22/02/2023 19:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Feb 21, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Rather than scanning for the triplet, a better test would be
{ xfail { a
On Feb 23, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 22/02/2023 19:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
Rather than scanning for the triplet, a better test would be
>>>
{ xfail { arm_eabi } }
>>>
>>> Indeed,
On Feb 23, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 22/02/2023 19:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>>> Rather than scanning for the triplet, a better test would be
>>
>>> { xfail { arm_eabi } }
>>
>> Indeed, thanks. Here's the updated patch, retested. Ok t
On 22/02/2023 19:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Feb 21, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Rather than scanning for the triplet, a better test would be
{ xfail { arm_eabi } }
Indeed, thanks. Here's the updated patch, retested. Ok to install?
Based on Nathan's comments, we should just ski
On Feb 21, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Rather than scanning for the triplet, a better test would be
> { xfail { arm_eabi } }
Indeed, thanks. Here's the updated patch, retested. Ok to install?
[PR105224] C++ modules and AAPCS/ARM EABI clash on inline key methods
From: Alexandre Oliva
On 2/21/23 11:31, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I started looking at this a few weeks back, but I was a bit confused by the
testcase and then never got around to following up.
The Arm C++ binding rules normally exclude using an inline function definition
from being chosen as the key function becaus
On 21/02/2023 16:31, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 17/02/2023 06:09, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Apr 5, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Would something like this be acceptable/desirable? It's overreaching,
in that not all arm platforms are expected to fail, but th
On 17/02/2023 06:09, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Apr 5, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Would something like this be acceptable/desirable? It's overreaching,
in that not all arm platforms are expected to fail, but the result on
them will be an unexpected pass, which is not quite a
On Apr 5, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Would something like this be acceptable/desirable? It's overreaching,
> in that not all arm platforms are expected to fail, but the result on
> them will be an unexpected pass, which is not quite as bad as the
> unexpected fail we get on most arm variant
On Mar 31, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C fails on arm-eabi and many other arm targets
> that use the AAPCS variant. ARM is the only target that overrides
> TARGET_CXX_KEY_METHOD_MAY_BE_INLINE. It's not clear to me which way the
> clash between AAPCS and C++ Modules de
12 matches
Mail list logo
