https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #21 from Kewen Lin ---
I didn't look into this in details, but something in the culprit commit caught
my eyes, take altivec_vmrghh as example:
Before the patch, the pattern
[(set (match_operand:V8HI 0 "register_operand" "=v")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106069
--- Comment #23 from Kewen Lin ---
> Ideally we would avoid semantic difference of RTL depending on the target.
> If that's not avoidable there should be target macros/hooks that specify
> the desired semantics.
Not sure, IMHO it seems it doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 53405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53405&action=edit
untested patch
With the attached patch, for -fpatchable-function-entry=5,2 it gets:
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_start
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106516
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> Your second option isn't correct: all these nops should be consecutive. Your
> option 1 is fine :-)
Good point! It's lucky that I chose option 1. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106550
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-08
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
--- Comment #32 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #30)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #29)
> > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #28)
> > > Sorry for the breakage, I'll have a look tomorrow.
> > >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
--- Comment #37 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #36)
> You might need to do -O2 -fPIE -pie to reproduce the issue as debian is
> configured with --enable-default-pie
Thanks for the hint! I can reproduce this but it ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
--- Comment #38 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 53428
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53428&action=edit
untested patch
A untested patch which can make it pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
--- Comment #40 from Kewen Lin ---
> >diff --git a/gcc/internal-fn.cc b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> >index d666f67..7d8b4ac2200 100644
> >--- a/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> >+++ b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> >@@ -3750,7 +3750,12 @@ static bool
> > direct_optab_su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
--- Comment #41 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #40)
> > >diff --git a/gcc/internal-fn.cc b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > >index d666f67..7d8b4ac2200 100644
> > >--- a/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > >+++ b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > >@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
--- Comment #44 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #43)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #42)
> > I think this goes wrong in vectorizable_operation which does
> >
> > if (using_emulated_vectors_p
> > &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #5)
> * There is a restriction on the number of instructions between the function
> label and the .localentry directive.
> * For -fpatchable-function-entry=N[,M], M nops mus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99889
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #45 from Kewen Lin --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99889
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106345
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #8)
> Note, the gcc.target/powerpc/pr92398.p9-.c test fails when the compiler is
> configured for either --with-cpu=power9 or --with-cpu=power10. No
> --with-tune= was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106681
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106516
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106680
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106516
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106516
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 53492 [details]
> > Adjust pr104992.c with vect_int_mod
> >
> > > So it sounds like we want a generic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
--- Comment #49 from Kewen Lin ---
Hi Richi,
One thing I'm not sure about is that if we want to backport this to gcc-11 and
gcc-10? Although the failure got exposed by .MULH pattern recog which is only
in gcc-12, IMHO the underlying issue exist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
By searching the history of this feature, I found its initial versions only
proposed to place nops after the function entry, such as: v2[1], then it's
requested to be more generic to handle some "exploited atomi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
Oops, the reference links in #c10 are:
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2016-September/458210.html
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2016-September/458287.html
[3] https://gcc.gnu.org/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #4)
> > Thanks for the comments! One patch guarding these types is attached, it can
> > fix the ICE.
>
> That won't work, becaus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106682
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106680
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53513|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106682
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |testsuite
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
Bug ID: 106833
Summary: Handle OPAQUE_TYPE in
gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #1)
> > IMHO this is an omission when we were adding supports for opaque type, const
> > __vector_quad and __vector_quad should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
--- Comment #5 from Kewen Lin ---
> > I'm quoting tree.def, emphasis mine:
> >
> > /* This is for types that will use MODE_OPAQUE in the back end. They are
> > meant
> >to be able to go in a register of some sort but are _EXPLICITLY NOT TO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 53542
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53542&action=edit
Specially handle opaque type in verify_type
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> (In reply to rguent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> Although, preferably we should not allow assigning one opaque type to another
> opaque type just because they will eventually use the same mode, not without
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
One modified case from pr102347.c (same option set is used), which can
reproduce the ICE without any gcc source adjustment.
#pragma GCC target "cpu=power10"
int main ()
{
float *b;
const __vector_quad c;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106736
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> > > When MMA is not enabled,
> > ...
> > > the __vector_{q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106345
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100645
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100645
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96072
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96072
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106941
Bug ID: 106941
Summary: Warn/Error conversion between opaque types in generic
handling
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106941
Bug 106941 depends on bug 106833, which changed state.
Bug 106833 Summary: Miss to handle OPAQUE_TYPE specially in verify_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833
--- Comment #16 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #15)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #14)
> > Should be fixed on trunk
>
> I assume this is broken on the release branches too and we'll need backports?
Good ques
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96072
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105485
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104482
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322
--- Comment #54 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #53)
> Closing. I do not believe that Debian gcc-12 (12.2.0-3) really is an update
> to git 20220920 from the gcc-12 branch. Sorry for the noise.
OK. Thanks for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106516
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105649
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giuliano.belinassi at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99889
Bug 99889 depends on bug 99888, which changed state.
Bug 99888 Summary: Add powerpc ELFv2 support for -fpatchable-function-entry*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
>
> The above doesn't look wrong (but may miss the rest of the IL). On
> x86_64 this looks like
>
>[local count: 105119324]:
> # sum0_41 = PHI
> # sum1_39 = PHI
> # sum2_37 = PHI
> # sum3_35 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
> > > Btw, I've fixed a SLP reduction issue two days ago in
> > > r13-3226-gee467644c53ee2
> > > though that looks unrelated?
> >
> > Thanks for the information, I'll double check it.
> >
To rebase to r13-32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107160
--- Comment #18 from Kewen Lin ---
Thanks for the prompt fix! I just verified it fixed the SPEC2006 447.dealII
regression perfectly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107240
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107240
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin ---
Well, it does helps vect-bitfield-write-{2,3}.c, but it doesn't help
vect-bitfield-write-{2,3,4}.c since they do require vector/vector shift
supports.
I guess it might be a good idea to add the vect_long_long e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107299
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107240
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #7)
> Well, it does helps vect-bitfield-write-{2,3}.c, but it doesn't help
> vect-bitfield-write-{2,3,4}.c since they do require vector/vector shift
Oops, typo here, should b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100645
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96072
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107338
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-10-21
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107338
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #11)
> Unfortunately, I still have exactly the same ICE on this testcase w/ 12.0.0
> alpha20211219 snapshot:
>
> % powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0 -mcpu=401 tt.c
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #14 from Kewen Lin ---
> % powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0 -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gcc-12.0.0
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-
> wrapper
> Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
>
> I tried it on a x86_64 cfarm machine:
>
> /home/linkw/gcc/gcc-test/configure --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> --target=powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> --prefix=/home/linkw/gcc/install/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #17 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16)
> Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc's
> configure detects at build time?
Good point, what's the version of binutils you used? Does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #20 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #19)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16)
> > > Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-12-10 00:00:00 |2021-12-27
--- Comment #21 from Kewen Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Hi Andre,
Thanks for the detailed explanations all below!
(In reply to avieira from comment #3)
> Hi Kewen,
>
> Thanks for the analysis. The param_vect_partial_vector_usage suggestion
> seems valid, but that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> I think the patch in comment 2 is the correct fix (OK to commit).
>
Thanks for the review and approval Richard!
I totally agree this test case can be fragi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103702
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
Patch was posted with the link
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587309.html, still
pending on review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> Checking the number of tries might be useful, but if so, I think
> it should be done by a test that was written for that specific
> purpose. The tst can th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104015
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103702
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #30 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to pc from comment #27)
> There was a commit related to this bug, but it is still in ASSIGNED state,
> so I'm not sure if this was to be considered "fixed", but...
>
> Chip discovered that, with a bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #32 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #31)
> Created attachment 52383 [details]
> Simpler patch to fix the problem with power8-fusion.
>
> This patch just ignores the -mpower8-fusion option in the callee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #35 from Kewen Lin ---
> I don't think the r12-6219 commit qualifies for backporting. What about the
> comment#31 patch? Does it address the issue for Eigen on the branches?
Got it. comment#31 patch can only address the mismatch i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103627
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104024
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104004
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99197
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623
--- Comment #25 from Kewen Lin ---
The key difference from the previous bif support is that: previously we checked
TARGET_HARD_FLOAT but now we didn't. I think we still need to check it, as the
document here
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Ba
201 - 300 of 806 matches
Mail list logo
