* Jeff Law [2016-11-29 10:35:50 -0700]:
> On 11/29/2016 07:02 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]:
> >
> > > On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > > * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09
> > > > +0100]:
> > > >
> > > > > On 20 November 2016 at
On 11/29/2016 07:02 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]:
On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
So, your
* Jeff Law [2016-11-28 15:08:46 -0700]:
> On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
> >
> > > On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > So, your new tes
On 11/24/2016 02:40 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
After a little digging I think the problem might be tha
* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-21 13:47:09 +0100]:
> On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess
> > wrote:
> >>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
> >>
> >> After a little digging I think the problem might be that
> >> -freorder-blocks-an
On 20 November 2016 at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess
> wrote:
>>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
>>
>> After a little digging I think the problem might be that
>> -freorder-blocks-and-partition is not supported on arm.
>>
>> This should be detec
On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> So, your new test fails on arm* targets:
>
> After a little digging I think the problem might be that
> -freorder-blocks-and-partition is not supported on arm.
>
> This should be detected as the new tests include:
>
>/* { dg-require-effe
* Christophe Lyon [2016-11-18 13:21:50 +0100]:
> On 16 November 2016 at 23:12, Andrew Burgess
> wrote:
> > * Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
> >
> >> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
> >> wrote:
> >> > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
> >>
On 16 November 2016 at 23:12, Andrew Burgess
wrote:
> * Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
>
>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
>> wrote:
>> > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
>> > them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
>> >
>> >
On 11/16/2016 03:12 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
wrote:
My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
/* { dg-final-use { scan-as
* Mike Stump [2016-11-16 12:59:53 -0800]:
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
> wrote:
> > My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
> > them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
> >
> >/* { dg-final-use { scan-assembler "\.section\[\t
> > \]
On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Andrew Burgess
wrote:
> My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict
> them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with:
>
>/* { dg-final-use { scan-assembler "\.section\[\t
> \]*\.text\.unlikely\[\\n\\r\]+\[\t \]*\.size\[\t \]*foo\.col
* Bernd Schmidt [2016-11-03 13:01:32 +0100]:
> On 09/14/2016 03:00 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
> > correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
> > think things currently work. I'm sure most people readin
On 09/14/2016 03:00 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will
already know this, but hopefully, if my underst
* Jeff Law [2016-10-28 09:58:14 -0600]:
> On 09/15/2016 08:24 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
> > > > co
On 09/15/2016 08:24 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
thi
* Jakub Jelinek [2016-09-14 15:07:56 +0200]:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
> > correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
> > think things currently work. I'm sure
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its
> correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I
> think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will
> already know this, but
18 matches
Mail list logo
