Hi!
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:28:12 +0100, I wrote:
> Using [...] to forcefully disable -fvar-tracking (as done in
> nvptx_option_override), should then allow me to drop the following
> beautiful specimen of a patch (which I didn't commit anywhere, so far):
No progress yet with that, so for now, com
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:28:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Am I on the right track with my assumption that it is correct that
> nvptx.c:nvptx_option_override is not invoked in the offloading code path,
> so we'd need a new target hook (?) to consolidate/override the options in
> this scenar
On 02/25/2015 11:28 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Am I on the right track with my assumption that it is correct that
nvptx.c:nvptx_option_override is not invoked in the offloading code path,
so we'd need a new target hook (?) to consolidate/override the options in
this scenario?
I'm surprised by
