[Bug target/58928] Different results from gcc when -mlzcnt is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928 Michael Barker changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/58928] Different results from gcc when -mlzcnt is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928 Michael Barker changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID

[Bug target/58928] Different results from gcc when -mlzcnt is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928 --- Comment #5 from Michael Barker --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @2.40GHz > is not IvyBridge, plus even IvyBridge doesn't support lzcnt insn, only > Haswell or some recent AMD CPUs. So, this looks li

[Bug target/58928] Different results from gcc when -mlzcnt is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 f

[Bug target/58928] Different results from gcc when -mlzcnt is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928 Julian Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jtaylor.debian at googlemail dot c

[Bug target/58928] Different results from gcc when -mlzcnt is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928 --- Comment #2 from Michael Barker --- > Hope helps What hardware platform are you testing on? I'm running on Ivy Bridge: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @2.40GHz Could you put the assembler that you see on the ticket: With -mlzcnt: 00400

[Bug target/58928] Different results from gcc when -mlzcnt is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928 chenjinzhi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gnome3fans at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 f