sheisc added a comment. In D125789#3519493 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789#3519493>, @pengfei wrote:
> In D125789#3519433 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789#3519433>, @sheisc wrote: > >> In D125789#3519411 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789#3519411>, @pengfei >> wrote: >> >>> I think another way is to report the issue to GCC. From the perspective of >>> the user, GCC should support both `{%k1} {z}` and `{%k1}{z}`. Then we don't >>> need the clange on LLVM. >> >> Yes. It is a good idea. >> However, it appears that there is no such white space in the instructions as >> described in Intel's manuals. >> So I don't know which one should be the correct format. >> Anyway, not a big issue. >> I found this problem when using the fuzzer (i.e. AFL) to build Firefox. > > Yeah. This is an interesting question. I didn't notice the difference between > LLVM and GCC. I think either way changing here or GCC is OK :) Hi Pengfei, Thanks a lot. The guys in the GCC community can make our life easier by supporting the white space. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
