On 7/9/20 4:10 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> I verified the updated test case passes on both LE and BE, so I've
> pushed this now. I'll let Bill Seurer's nightly testing try this
> on a wider variety of builds before backporting this to GCC10.
> I'll try and do that tomorrow.
Bill's nightly testsuit
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:10:41PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 7/9/20 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> [snip]
> > So maybe we should just do all builtins always?
>
> I think that is the correct thing to do, but I think maybe that
> should wait for Bill's rewrite of the built-in generatio
On 7/9/20 4:10 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On 7/9/20 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/96125
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr96125.c: New test.
Okay for trunk and 10 (but see test nit below). Thanks!
[snip]
So maybe we should just do all builtins always?
I t
On 7/9/20 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> gcc/testsuite/
>> PR target/96125
>> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr96125.c: New test.
>
> Okay for trunk and 10 (but see test nit below). Thanks!
[snip]
> So maybe we should just do all builtins always?
I think that is the correct thing to do,
Hi!
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:02:45PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> PR96125 shows a bug when we try to use an MMA built-in within a function
> that uses #pragma target/attribute target to enable power10 code generation
> and the -mcpu= command line option is pre-power10.
>
> The problem is that
On 7/8/20 11:02 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Is this ok for trunk assuming the bootstrap and regression testing
> show no regressions?
>
> This also affects GCC10, so I'd like to backport this before the release.
> Ok there too after it sits on trunk a day or two?
>
> Peter
>
>
> gcc/
> PR
