On 07/07/16 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 7 July 2016 at 14:54, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 07/07/16 12:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 7 July 2016 at 11:16, Jiong Wang wrote:
I was using dg-xfail-if, (the description is still using "marked as
XFAIL"...),
but later found it's actually broken u
On 7 July 2016 at 14:54, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 07/07/16 12:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 7 July 2016 at 11:16, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I was using dg-xfail-if, (the description is still using "marked as
>>> XFAIL"...),
>>> but later found it's actually broken under advsimd-intrin
On 07/07/16 12:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 7 July 2016 at 11:16, Jiong Wang wrote:
I was using dg-xfail-if, (the description is still using "marked as
XFAIL"...),
but later found it's actually broken under advsimd-intrinsics, UNRESOLVEDs
are
given at the same time instead of clean XFAIL, I
On 7 July 2016 at 11:16, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 06/07/16 16:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 6 July 2016 at 17:44, Kyrill Tkachov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/07/16 16:29, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> T
On 7 July 2016 at 11:16, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 06/07/16 16:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 6 July 2016 at 17:44, Kyrill Tkachov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/07/16 16:29, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> T
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:16:31AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
> I was using dg-xfail-if, (the description is still using "marked as
> XFAIL"...),
> but later found it's actually broken under advsimd-intrinsics,
> UNRESOLVEDs are
> given at the same time instead of clean XFAIL, I suspect those dg-do-w
On 06/07/16 16:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 6 July 2016 at 17:44, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
On 06/07/16 16:29, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
The current vmaxnm/vminnm float intrinsics are implemented using
__builtin_aarch64_smax/min
On 6 July 2016 at 17:44, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> On 06/07/16 16:29, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> The current vmaxnm/vminnm float intrinsics are implemented using
>>> __builtin_aarch64_smax/min which are mapping to
Hi all,
On 06/07/16 16:29, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
The current vmaxnm/vminnm float intrinsics are implemented using
__builtin_aarch64_smax/min which are mapping to backend patterns
using smin/smax rtl operators. However as documented
On 6 July 2016 at 17:29, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>> The current vmaxnm/vminnm float intrinsics are implemented using
>> __builtin_aarch64_smax/min which are mapping to backend patterns
>> using smin/smax rtl operators. However as docu
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
> The current vmaxnm/vminnm float intrinsics are implemented using
> __builtin_aarch64_smax/min which are mapping to backend patterns
> using smin/smax rtl operators. However as documented in rtl.def
>
> "Further, if both operands are
11 matches
Mail list logo
