On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 08:53:34PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 12/19/2018 8:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 19/12/2018 21:20, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> On 12/19/2018 7:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 19/12/2018 20:29, Ferruh Yigit:
> AVX512 was disabled for GCC because of Bugzilla issue 97
On 12/19/2018 8:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 19/12/2018 21:20, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 12/19/2018 7:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 19/12/2018 20:29, Ferruh Yigit:
AVX512 was disabled for GCC because of Bugzilla issue 97 [1],
the GCC defect submitted for the issue [2] highlighted that th
19/12/2018 21:20, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 12/19/2018 7:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 19/12/2018 20:29, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> AVX512 was disabled for GCC because of Bugzilla issue 97 [1],
> >> the GCC defect submitted for the issue [2] highlighted that this is
> >> a known binutils version 2.30 issue.
>
On 12/19/2018 7:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 19/12/2018 20:29, Ferruh Yigit:
>> AVX512 was disabled for GCC because of Bugzilla issue 97 [1],
>> the GCC defect submitted for the issue [2] highlighted that this is
>> a known binutils version 2.30 issue.
>>
>> Narrowed the scope of no-avx512 to th
19/12/2018 20:29, Ferruh Yigit:
> AVX512 was disabled for GCC because of Bugzilla issue 97 [1],
> the GCC defect submitted for the issue [2] highlighted that this is
> a known binutils version 2.30 issue.
>
> Narrowed the scope of no-avx512 to the this specific binutils version.
[...]
> # disable
AVX512 was disabled for GCC because of Bugzilla issue 97 [1],
the GCC defect submitted for the issue [2] highlighted that this is
a known binutils version 2.30 issue.
Narrowed the scope of no-avx512 to the this specific binutils version.
[1]
https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97
[2]
https://g
6 matches
Mail list logo