On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 11:40 -0800, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> This is okay, but how about starting with a testcase for this?
>
> Fair enough. Here's the revised patch with a test, which I've verified
> on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok to pro
On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 11:40 -0800, David Edelsohn wrote:
> This is okay, but how about starting with a testcase for this?
Fair enough. Here's the revised patch with a test, which I've verified
on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok to proceed?
Thanks!
Bill
[gcc]
2016-02-16 Bill Schmidt
On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 11:40 -0800, David Edelsohn wrote:
> This is okay, but how about starting with a testcase for this?
That's fine. I'll make it generic enough that we can add to it later,
then.
Bill
>
> Thanks David
>
> On Feb 16, 2016 11:37 AM, "Bill Schmidt"
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
During the little-endian vector modification work in 2014, I
accidentally introduced an error that Uli Weigand noticed this week.
This results in wrong code being generated for the
__builtin_altivec_lvxl and vec_lvxl interfaces; an "lvx" instruction is
generated instead of an "lvxl" instructio
