On 10 December 2013 15:35, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote:> Without it, -save-temps is broken. As such it falls into a pretty > basic use case.Hi Joerg, I couldn't find anything in bugzilla that matched your description, but it seems like a pretty bad problem, can you point us to the discussion so we can decide whether it should be fixed now, or after the move. thanks, --renato
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 03:55:25PM +0000, Renato Golin wrote:> On 10 December 2013 15:35, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > > Without it, -save-temps is broken. As such it falls into a pretty > > basic use case. > > Hi Joerg, > > I couldn't find anything in bugzilla that matched your description, > but it seems like a pretty bad problem, can you point us to the > discussion so we can decide whether it should be fixed now, or after > the move.I haven't created a bug report yet. From memory, the following things are missing and higher-priority: Pseudo-ops: .abicalls .fpu .arch .cpu Modifiers: foo(GOTOFF) foo(GOT) foo(PLT) ldr is a separate issue with a pending patch. Joerg
> I haven't created a bug report yet. From memory, the following things > are missing and higher-priority:This is looking hopeful.> Pseudo-ops: > .abicallsThis is MIPS-only.> .fpu > .arch > .cpuI think there was some opinion that directives like these weren't essential (well, I certainly hold the opinion!)> Modifiers: > foo(GOTOFF) > foo(GOT) > foo(PLT)I think David fixed these in r196424.> ldr is a separate issue with a pending patch.Yep. It'll probably go in in the next few days. Just as soon as we chain Jim to a computer long enough to give it his blessing. Cheers. Tim.