> I don't think that the mechanical change in UI_From_gnu is correct, see the
> comment just above. The annotate_value change is very likely correct, but
> please double check and, upon positive outcome, remove the last sentence of
> the comment just above.
The annotate_value change was wrong, fi
> So, given the last change, the remaining bit is:
>
> Index: gcc/ada/gcc-interface/cuintp.c
> ===
> --- gcc/ada/gcc-interface/cuintp.c(revision 209754)
> +++ gcc/ada/gcc-interface/cuintp.c(working copy)
> @@ -160,7 +160,11 @@
On Nov 25, 2013, at 12:46 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port
>> and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through
>> the entire patch.This patch covers the ada front-end.
>
> I don't think that th
> I had not realized that you were into self abuse like that. you are
> going to have a bad time. I tried this as a way to test the wide-int
> branch because if we made hwi be 32bits, then it would trigger the long
> version of the implementation wide-int routines. What a disaster
> richar
On 11/26/2013 09:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:03 AM, wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:00 AM, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw
On 11/26/2013 09:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
On 11/26/2013 08:44 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
patch below would be correct, but
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:03 AM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:00 AM, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 26/11/13
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:03 AM, wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:00 AM, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> you are correct - this w
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>
> On 11/26/2013 08:44 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>> On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:00 AM, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it
On 11/26/2013 08:44 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i
believe) that gcc no longer works if the host_bits_per_wide_int i
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
>>> patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i
>>> believe) that gcc no longer works if the host
On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
>> patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i
>> believe) that gcc no longer works if the host_bits_per_wide_int is 32.
>> I could be wrong about this but if
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
>> patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i
>> believe) that gcc no longer works if the host_bits_per_wide_int is 32.
>> I could be wrong a
> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
> patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i
> believe) that gcc no longer works if the host_bits_per_wide_int is 32.
> I could be wrong about this but if i am correct, what do you want me to do?
W
On 11/25/2013 03:46 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port
and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through
the entire patch.This patch covers the ada front-end.
I don't think that the mechanical change
> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port
> and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through
> the entire patch.This patch covers the ada front-end.
I don't think that the mechanical change in UI_From_gnu is correct, see the
comme
18 matches
Mail list logo
