From patchwork Wed Jan 4 15:01:37 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Aldy Hernandez X-Patchwork-Id: 134277 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 34206B6FB4 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 02:02:00 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1326294121; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence: List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=blZE5xfGqY2ppL7yJNu6IIvkenY=; b=FKaxl/WgVzSPDAR r1S4bbfu5qkZJDCSxL4myQRLHb/chkvXpBKcVLFJ8lO+Bi5bQmpfdGLVgNh4vlzg YeHngM40OPFyNE2F4xokI2sOJEtwGVvO/93i4kpNyHj+Gpm/x4sz4vbXuJJib3z5 vV8FQuHylei5jHxNK4Bd0hR3oh2g= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=KMi+d5jIwNCt9gQuD0T/nXTBSRM0ONRq4I3SVQ2qI0UCCRE56Vc0VQv/kuxgn8 Iui/9zkmq4rlowOGrL2BbJ04nT6mhxVZKr9OfNq5tEUazOf5WRi+M96lsZVB4Qxm NMRvJg7bHl1XT55rGlD7wZkFVIkOvHEvoj1y7EwoGmgtY=; Received: (qmail 5451 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2012 15:01:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 5431 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2012 15:01:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:01:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q04F1cdK011243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:01:38 -0500 Received: from houston.quesejoda.com (vpn-9-121.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.9.121]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q04F1bZj010842; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:01:37 -0500 Message-ID: <4F0469D1.9050206@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:01:37 -0600 From: Aldy Hernandez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Henderson CC: Richard Guenther , Torvald Riegel , gcc-patches Subject: Re: PR middle-end/51212: sorry out on -fgnu-tm + -fnon-call-exceptions References: <4EF3894B.5050504@redhat.com> <4F030C52.7020408@redhat.com> <4F03661A.6050908@redhat.com> <4F046860.5070303@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F046860.5070303@redhat.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On 01/04/12 08:55, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > On 01/03/12 14:33, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 01/04/2012 01:10 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> I can certainly do this. I am however, waiting for the final >>> approval. It wasn't clear whether that was an approval from Richard >>> Henderson, or whether I should wait for an official ok. >>> >>> OK for mainline? >> >> Yes, it was approval. >> >> >> r~ > > Richi, this is the patch I committed with your suggestions for the > documentation (*). Let me know if you'd like it worded different. > > (*) Note, the test got committed by mistake in my previous commit a few > minutes ago along with my previous fix. Sorry about that. Arghhh... It seems I had already committed this patch before the holidays, but I had mistakenly thought it hadn't been approved nor committed. Consequently, the last patch was a duplicate (with the exception of the documentation change). I am embarrassingly committing the following. Blame it on the holiday mojitos. * opts.c (finish_options): Remove duplicate sorry. Index: opts.c =================================================================== --- opts.c (revision 182877) +++ opts.c (working copy) @@ -666,9 +666,6 @@ finish_options (struct gcc_options *opts if (opts->x_flag_tm && opts->x_flag_non_call_exceptions) sorry ("transactional memory is not supported with non-call exceptions"); - if (opts->x_flag_tm && opts->x_flag_non_call_exceptions) - sorry ("transactional memory is not supported with non-call exceptions"); - /* -Wmissing-noreturn is alias for -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn. */ if (opts->x_warn_missing_noreturn) opts->x_warn_suggest_attribute_noreturn = true;