https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111876
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > This could either be wrong code for not doing the promotion or just missing > the libgcc functions (which could be implemented as doing the promotion). > > Either ways confirmed. thanks, for checking. but I think the underlying concern is that providing a disjoint extension (+fp16) should not alter the behaviour of bf16 (in this case I did some limited poking about but could not see any obvious place where the addition of fp16 alters complex number handling).
