From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8342 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2009 13:52:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 8333 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Aug 2009 13:52:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx20.gnu.org (HELO mx20.gnu.org) (199.232.41.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:52:16 +0000 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MZ3O9-0008MN-Pc for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:52:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 26103 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2009 13:52:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 6 Aug 2009 13:52:13 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MZ3O7-0001Me-PZ; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:52:11 +0000 Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:21:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Richard Earnshaw cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Preparing to merge ARM/hard_vfp_branch to trunk In-Reply-To: <1249478458.17762.33.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: References: <1249478458.17762.33.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Detected-Operating-System: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I think we are now in the position where we can merge the arm hard-vfp > ABI code into trunk. There are no known issues with the compiler code > and just one outstanding issue relating to tests and dealing with > compiler variants (multilibs and other options). That issue shouldn't > prevent merging. I've remembered two outstanding issues from : * The pcs attribute needs documentation and testcases. * The attribute warning using %qs should now use %qE. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com