https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebb474647037a7bd429e400b21b2dedbb78fee5e
commit r8-10858-gebb474647037a7bd429e400b21b2dedbb78fee5e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c60d0f6b7b586ff623e423c28f403ab7e5e78fbc
commit r9-9388-gc60d0f6b7b586ff623e423c28f403ab7e5e78fbc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #10 from Piotr Kubaj ---
Would it be possible to backport this issue to 9?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cd547f0ddcd3a54e5b73bcda5ac0f0c46808db8b
commit r10-8851-gcd547f0ddcd3a54e5b73bcda5ac0f0c46808db8b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d00b1b023ecfc3ddc3fe952c0063dab7529d5f7a
commit r11-3476-gd00b1b023ecfc3ddc3fe952c0063dab7529d5f7a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah.
Is there no better way to detect GCC impostors? Oh well.
Since we require 4.5 as bootstrap compiler, this makes no difference
at all for compilers that truthfully claim to be GCC, so it has my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It can be anything > 4.2 (because clang pretends to be GCC 4.2).
4.5 was just because the other altivec section was >= 4.5.
PR45381 contains some details about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, good point.
So either we can convert to the normal intrinsics, or (much easier)
check we are building with GCC at all. But why 4.5? Do earlier
versions not work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, libcpp isn't using the standard Altivec intrinsics, but their gcc
underlying implementation. Looking at clang altivec.h, I see they use vector
keyword everywhere and not sure what exactly they map it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Guess we need something like:
> -#elif defined(_ARCH_PWR8) && defined(__ALTIVEC__)
> +#elif (GCC_VERSION >= 4005) && defined(_ARCH_PWR8) &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
13 matches
Mail list logo
