This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64
- From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:52:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't build 32-bit libatomic with -march=i486 on x86-64
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160419150735 dot GA7668 at intel dot com> <CAFULd4ZV0jkjmgyH5HY_-BExB10YDtkXh4uL4_ObkVABU74PbA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqZ1=kjTRqoxBJQkeowgo9U1Nqjs212=_1YVNQuWewRWg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4YRzFzq96E8pDh4_iake6e-dXoF=aPJqKEeskx0VuoBnw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOpWiPAkMJrYz2fXYE95uUjmH7GTVS-fosn3oEx=-p_94w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4bi3P3oGH1-KOHJ4uvPba9QR7t0sCd7Fu1-Yki4BZqs6w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrD6AS2ZzWrdzjQ2CiFqn-CmM2QfmHFBsdddva2xebh+Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4bXVaCmBaUm5hzjzi_V1WvTvX8hMRrwb7q4GqWt1Z6eYA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOr6mSP3Dv3JUXMBP0ehirUEimGXO_Zcw2avADXHeHQ3mQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160420145447 dot GH2850 at laptop dot zalov dot cz> <CAMe9rOox9qJzYYTsMOtQ249cxXFxkStimXtWsdUi2hhQwO-TLQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <571DE781 dot 1030407 at redhat dot com> <CAFULd4bWnvQTb4aM_i-Spi=O179cmz_w=caS_apUWP8D0-SafA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/20/2016 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01080.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong, see my other comment on the libgomp patch.
>>>>
>>> See my reply to your reply on the libgomp patch.
>>
>>
>> Since Jakub has said it is wrong, please revert.
>
> I agree.
(sent the message too fast...)
These patches obviously need some more discussion.
Uros.