This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Don't pull in unwinder for 64-bit division routines

From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramrad01 at arm dot com>
To: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "ian at airs dot com" <ian at airs dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, Ye Joey <joey dot ye dot cc at gmail dot com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:56:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Don't pull in unwinder for 64-bit division routines
References: <20120720111527.16dea84e@octopus> <20120724132708.49bc2afc@octopus>
Reply-to: ramrad01 at arm dot com

On 07/24/12 13:27, Julian Brown wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:15:27 +0100
Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com> wrote:

Anyway: this revised version of the patch removes the strange libgcc
Makefile-fragment changes, the equivalent of which have since been
incorporated into mainline GCC now anyway, so the patch is somewhat
more straightforward than it was previously.


Joey Ye contacted me offlist and suggested that the t-divmod-ef
fragment might be better integrated into t-bpabi instead. Doing that
makes the patch somewhat smaller/cleaner.

Minimally re-tested, looks OK.

The original submission makes no mention of testing ? The ARM specific portions look OK to me modulo no regressions.

Ian, can also take a quick look.

regards,
Ramana

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH, ARM] Don't pull in unwinder for 64-bit division routines
  - From: Julian Brown
- Re: [PATCH, ARM] Don't pull in unwinder for 64-bit division routines
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]