On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 11:52 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 11:32:40AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > I think that the patch should also be backported to gcc-9 branch. The
> > change is backward compatible, since the new code will save and
> > restore zmm16+ registers at the ca
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 11:32:40AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I think that the patch should also be backported to gcc-9 branch. The
> change is backward compatible, since the new code will save and
> restore zmm16+ registers at the caller site, and the old code (e.g.
> existing libraries) will the
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 11:32:40AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 11:05 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 08:24:38AM +, JonY wrote:
> > > It does not, I just checked with the master branch of binutils.
> > ...
> > > I did a -c test build with an older
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 11:05 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 08:24:38AM +, JonY wrote:
> > It does not, I just checked with the master branch of binutils.
> ...
> > I did a -c test build with an older toolchain, it fails to compile
> > (invalid register for .seh_savexmm) wh
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 08:24:38AM +, JonY wrote:
> It does not, I just checked with the master branch of binutils.
...
> I did a -c test build with an older toolchain, it fails to compile
> (invalid register for .seh_savexmm) while the latest gcc is passing,
> both are using the same binutils
On 2/7/20 11:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:57:22AM +, JonY wrote:
Is this patch testing still required? I just got back from traveling.
>>>
>>> Yes, our reading of the MS ABI docs show that xmm16-31 are to be call used
>>> (not preserved over calls), while in gcc
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:57:22AM +, JonY wrote:
> >> Is this patch testing still required? I just got back from traveling.
> >
> > Yes, our reading of the MS ABI docs show that xmm16-31 are to be call used
> > (not preserved over calls), while in gcc they are currently handled as
> > preserv
On 2/6/20 6:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:00:36AM +, JonY wrote:
>> On 2/4/20 11:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:16:06AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
I guess that Comment #9 patch form the PR should be trivially correct,
b
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:00:36AM +, JonY wrote:
> On 2/4/20 11:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:16:06AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >> I guess that Comment #9 patch form the PR should be trivially correct,
> >> but althouhg it looks obvious, I don't want
On 2/4/20 11:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:16:06AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> I guess that Comment #9 patch form the PR should be trivially correct,
>> but althouhg it looks obvious, I don't want to propose the patch since
>> I have no means of testing it.
>
>
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:16:06AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I guess that Comment #9 patch form the PR should be trivially correct,
> but althouhg it looks obvious, I don't want to propose the patch since
> I have no means of testing it.
I don't have means of testing it either.
https://docs
11 matches
Mail list logo
