On 21/03/18 11:40, Sudakshina Das wrote:
Hi
On 21/03/18 08:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 20 March 2018 at 11:58, Sudakshina Das wrote:
Hi
On 20/03/18 10:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 14/03/18 10:11, Sudakshina Das wrote:
Hi
This patch fixes PR82989 so that we avoid NEON instruc
Hi
On 21/03/18 08:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 20 March 2018 at 11:58, Sudakshina Das wrote:
Hi
On 20/03/18 10:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 14/03/18 10:11, Sudakshina Das wrote:
Hi
This patch fixes PR82989 so that we avoid NEON instructions when
-mneon-for-64bits is not enable
On 20 March 2018 at 11:58, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 20/03/18 10:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>
>> On 14/03/18 10:11, Sudakshina Das wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> This patch fixes PR82989 so that we avoid NEON instructions when
>>> -mneon-for-64bits is not enabled. This is more of a sh
Hi
On 20/03/18 10:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 14/03/18 10:11, Sudakshina Das wrote:
Hi
This patch fixes PR82989 so that we avoid NEON instructions when
-mneon-for-64bits is not enabled. This is more of a short term fix for
the real deeper problem of making and early decision of choo
On 14/03/18 10:11, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> Hi
>
> This patch fixes PR82989 so that we avoid NEON instructions when
> -mneon-for-64bits is not enabled. This is more of a short term fix for
> the real deeper problem of making and early decision of choosing or
> rejecting NEON instructions. There is
Hi
This patch fixes PR82989 so that we avoid NEON instructions when
-mneon-for-64bits is not enabled. This is more of a short term fix for
the real deeper problem of making and early decision of choosing or
rejecting NEON instructions. There is now a new ticket PR84467 to deal
with the longer
