On 8/13/23 13:52, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 01:31, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 8/9/23 16:39, Tsukasa OI wrote:
On 2023/08/10 5:05, Jeff Law wrote:
I'd tend to think we do not want to expose the intrinsic unless the
right extensions are enabled -- even though
On 8/11/23 18:20, Tsukasa OI wrote:
I'll not be able to attend that meeting due to Japanese religious events
around Aug 13-16 (it may not be impossible but at least difficult) but
look forward seeing that some conclusion is made.
No problem. We hold that meeting weekly to work through any
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 12:53 PM Philipp Tomsich
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 01:31, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/9/23 16:39, Tsukasa OI wrote:
> > > On 2023/08/10 5:05, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > >> I'd tend to think we do not want to expose the intrinsic unless the
>
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 01:31, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/9/23 16:39, Tsukasa OI wrote:
> > On 2023/08/10 5:05, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> >> I'd tend to think we do not want to expose the intrinsic unless the
> >> right extensions are enabled -- even though the encoding is a no-op and
>
On 2023/08/12 8:30, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 8/9/23 16:39, Tsukasa OI wrote:
>> On 2023/08/10 5:05, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>>> I'd tend to think we do not want to expose the intrinsic unless the
>>> right extensions are enabled -- even though the encoding is a no-op and
>>> we could emit it as a .ins
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:30:29 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
On 8/9/23 16:39, Tsukasa OI wrote:
On 2023/08/10 5:05, Jeff Law wrote:
I'd tend to think we do not want to expose the intrinsic unless the
right extensions are enabled -- even though the encoding is a no-op and
we coul
On 8/9/23 16:39, Tsukasa OI wrote:
On 2023/08/10 5:05, Jeff Law wrote:
I'd tend to think we do not want to expose the intrinsic unless the
right extensions are enabled -- even though the encoding is a no-op and
we could emit it as a .insn.
I think that makes sense. The only reason I impl
On 2023/08/10 5:05, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 8/9/23 00:11, Tsukasa OI via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I found that a built-in function "__builtin_riscv_pause" is not usable
>> unless we enable the 'Zihintpause' extension explicitly (still, this
>> built-in exists EVEN IF the 'Zihintpause'
On 8/9/23 00:11, Tsukasa OI via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hello,
I found that a built-in function "__builtin_riscv_pause" is not usable
unless we enable the 'Zihintpause' extension explicitly (still, this
built-in exists EVEN IF the 'Zihintpause' extension is disabled).
Contents of a.c:
void samp
