On Oct 20, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 04:41:04PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> As this was rediscovered with PR81294, I've gone ahead with the backport for
>> 6.
>> It does not apply to 5, as the faulty code doesn't exist there.
>
> Well, 5 is closed anyw
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 04:41:04PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> As this was rediscovered with PR81294, I've gone ahead with the backport for
> 6.
> It does not apply to 5, as the faulty code doesn't exist there.
Well, 5 is closed anyway.
Jakub
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:47:32AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> As noted by Jakub in
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg00183.html,
>> the PowerPC back end incorrectly uses vec_select with 2 elements for a mode
>> tha
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:47:32AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> As noted by Jakub in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg00183.html,
> the PowerPC back end incorrectly uses vec_select with 2 elements for a mode
> that has only one. This is due to faulty mode iterator use: V1TImode was
>
