"Andre Vieira (lists)" writes:
> On 08/04/2022 08:04, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I think this would be better as a static assert at the top level:
>>
>>static_assert (TARGET_CPU_generic < TARGET_CPU_MASK,
>> "TARGET_CPU_NBITS is big enough");
> The motivation being that you want
On 08/04/2022 08:04, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I think this would be better as a static assert at the top level:
static_assert (TARGET_CPU_generic < TARGET_CPU_MASK,
"TARGET_CPU_NBITS is big enough");
The motivation being that you want this to be checked regardless of
wheth
"Andre Vieira (lists)" writes:
> Hi,
>
> This addresses the compile-time increase seen in the PR target/105157.
> This was being caused by selecting the wrong core tuning, as when we
> added the latest AArch64 the TARGET_CPU_generic tuning was pushed beyond
> the 0x3f mask we used to encode bot
Hi,
This addresses the compile-time increase seen in the PR target/105157.
This was being caused by selecting the wrong core tuning, as when we
added the latest AArch64 the TARGET_CPU_generic tuning was pushed beyond
the 0x3f mask we used to encode both target cpu and attributes into
TARGET_C
