This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM] Don't pull in unwinder for 64-bit division routines
- From: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>
- To: <ramrad01 at arm 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 20:29:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Don't pull in unwinder for 64-bit division routines
- References: <20120720111527.16dea84e@octopus> <20120724132708.49bc2afc@octopus> <502D4274.9070002@arm.com>
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:56:52 +0100
Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramrad01@arm.com> wrote:
> 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.
Thanks -- I'm sure I did test the patch, but just omitted to mention
that fact in the mail :-O. We've also been carrying a version of this
patch in our local source base for many years now.
> Ian, can also take a quick look.
Cheers,
Julian