-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.1k
[AArch64] Fix nofp regressions in compiler-rt and libunwind #111235
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ | |||||
|
|
||||||
| #include "../assembly.h" | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| #ifdef __aarch64__ | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| #define L(l) .L ## l | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| // | ||||||
|
|
@@ -238,7 +236,8 @@ END_COMPILERRT_OUTLINE_FUNCTION(__arm_sc_memcpy) | |||||
|
|
||||||
| DEFINE_COMPILERRT_FUNCTION_ALIAS(__arm_sc_memmove, __arm_sc_memcpy) | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| // This version uses FP registers. Use this only on targets with them | ||||||
| #if defined(__aarch64__) && __ARM_FP != 0 | ||||||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is the
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm not sure; the previous version protected this with
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @keith-packard I noticed that your patch has already been approved. Could you please proceed with submitting it upstream at your earliest convenience? Thank you for your contribution and for helping to improve the project.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I've rebased today; what else would I need to do to "submit it upstream"?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Nothing else needed - I will click the merge button once CI completes. This will squash the commits, but I think that should be fine since they are both quite small. Is that okay or would you prefer to have them separate in the commit history?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. squashed is just fine with me; I like to keep things split apart for review, but after that, I have no strong opinions. |
||||||
| // | ||||||
| // __arm_sc_memset | ||||||
| // | ||||||
|
|
||||||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.