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] |
On 07/23/13 16:23, David Holsgrove wrote:
On 24 July 2013 07:10, Michael Eager <eager@eagerm.com> wrote:On 07/14/13 21:37, David Holsgrove wrote:Hi Michael,-----Original Message----- From: Michael Eager [mailto:eager@eagerm.com] Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013 9:33 am To: David Holsgrove Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Edgar Iglesias; John Williams; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala; Tom Shui Subject: Re: [Patch, microblaze]: Add TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK to support varargs thunk On 03/18/13 05:49, David Holsgrove wrote:Changelog 2013-03-18 David Holsgrove <david.holsgrove@xilinx.com> * gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.c: Add microblaze_asm_output_mi_thunk and define TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK andTARGET_ASM_CAN_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK Sorry it has taken so long to review this patch. The gcc microblaze-xilinx-elf build with this patch fails here: +microblaze_asm_output_mi_thunk (FILE *file, tree thunk_fndecl ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, + HOST_WIDE_INT delta, HOST_WIDE_INT vcall_offset, + tree function) ... + emit_insn (gen_jump (funexp)); (actually, in output_operand() downstream from this statement) while compiling c++98/strstream.cc, with an error that the "%l" operand was not a label. This is the first occasion when this routine is called.I had sent a separate patch which should have been applied prior to this one which extended the jump insn to accommodate branching without the "%l" print operand, but I've since reworked our thunk support to avoid needing this second patch. Please find attached updated patch, and new Changelog entry; 2013-07-15 David Holsgrove <david.holsgrove@xilinx.com> * gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.c: Add microblaze_asm_output_mi_thunk and define TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK and TARGET_ASM_CAN_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK I'll post updated patches on the other threads out for review now. thanks, DavidCommitted revision 201185.Thanks Michael. I think the content of your commit doesnt line up with this Changelog entry or mail though, http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=c4fcbf4cd03c11aa1bc707b00dd95ba52f963b39 It looks like the atomic builtin patch which was posted as this mail; http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00551.html
Yes, I picked up the wrong ChangeLog and email. I fixed the ChangeLog. -- Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |