https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4045d5fa42f2ee7b284977c8f2f0edc300a63e43
commit r12-4786-g4045d5fa42f2ee7b284977c8f2f0edc300a63e43
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed3de62ac949c92ad41ef6de7cc926fbb2a510ce
commit r12-4785-ged3de62ac949c92ad41ef6de7cc926fbb2a510ce
Author: Tamar Christina
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
--- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina ---
Actually I'll just push the fix for this out now.
> The testcases added for this case does not actually test that complex fma was
> done.
yes, the way we were originally testing depended on target suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Oh you mean fcmla.
> Never mind.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> it is easier to understand what is going wrong with:
> #include
>
> void
> foo (_C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #5 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102977
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
