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] Minipool ranges for thumb2_movdf_soft_insn

From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at buzzard dot freeserve dot co dot uk>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, paul at codesourcery dot com
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 22:01:45 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Minipool ranges for thumb2_movdf_soft_insn
References: <20091127171115.14e1afe9@rex.config> <1259342704.9961.72.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20091204191133.42aa7c29@rex.config> <4C07F3E2.9090405@codesourcery.com>

On 03/06/10 19:26, Mark Mitchell wrote:

Julian Brown wrote:

OK to apply this version then? (Retested; probably counts as obvious...)
     gcc/
     * config/arm/thumb2.md (*thumb2_movdf_soft_insn): Fix alternatives
     for pool ranges.
It doesn't appear that this change was ever checked in, presumably
because you got not reply to this email.  Richard, Paul, would one of
you please look this over?
The original patch was here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01551.html

with the revised patch here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg00287.html

Ooops, sorry about that.

Yes, this is OK.

R.

References:
- Re: [PATCH, ARM] Minipool ranges for thumb2_movdf_soft_insn
  - From: Mark Mitchell

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