search for: r196424

...PS-only. > .fpu > .arch > .cpu I 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.

....march or .cpu is required for dealing with the infamous "you have the wrong CPU to use instruction X" issue. I'm not sure about .fpu yet. > > Modifiers: > > foo(GOTOFF) > > foo(GOT) > > foo(PLT) > > I think David fixed these in r196424. Will test this ASAP. > > 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. :) Joerg

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

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

...bec.de> wrote: > At least either .march or .cpu is required for dealing with the infamous > "you have the wrong CPU to use instruction X" issue. I'm not sure about > .fpu yet. I think patches for those have already landed upstream... >> I think David fixed these in r196424. Yup. cheers, --renato