On 12/15/21 12:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 08:00:02AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> No, all builtins should work in either mode, and always return long.
>>> If the patterns are broken, the *patterns* should be fixed :-)
>> OK, thanks! This is much clearer now.
>>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 08:00:02AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > No, all builtins should work in either mode, and always return long.
> > If the patterns are broken, the *patterns* should be fixed :-)
>
> OK, thanks! This is much clearer now.
>
> I've opened an internal issue about the deficien
On 12/14/21 8:23 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 07:32:30AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On 12/13/21 6:22 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:37:43PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On 12/13/21 10:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Dec
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 07:32:30AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/13/21 6:22 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:37:43PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >> On 12/13/21 10:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:30:28AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
On 12/14/21 7:32 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 12/13/21 6:22 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>> These builtins should just return a "long", just like __builtin_ppc_mftb
>> does. All three of them.
> Well, that seems wrong for __builtin_darn_32, which maps to an SImode pattern.
>
> So, I as
Hi!
On 12/13/21 6:22 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:37:43PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On 12/13/21 10:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:30:28AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:48 AM Bill Schmidt
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:37:43PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/13/21 10:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:30:28AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:48 AM Bill Schmidt
> >> wrote:
> >>> PR103624 observes that we get segfaults for the
Hi!
On 12/13/21 10:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:30:28AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:48 AM Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> PR103624 observes that we get segfaults for the 64-bit darn builtins when
>>> compiled
>>> on a 32-bit arc
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:30:28AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:48 AM Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > PR103624 observes that we get segfaults for the 64-bit darn builtins when
> > compiled
> > on a 32-bit architecture. The old built-in infrastructure requires
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:48 AM Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> PR103624 observes that we get segfaults for the 64-bit darn builtins when
> compiled
> on a 32-bit architecture. The old built-in infrastructure requires
> TARGET_64BIT, and
> this was missed in the new support. Moving these two
Hi!
PR103624 observes that we get segfaults for the 64-bit darn builtins when
compiled
on a 32-bit architecture. The old built-in infrastructure requires
TARGET_64BIT, and
this was missed in the new support. Moving these two builtins from the [power9]
stanza to the [power9-64] stanza solves th
11 matches
Mail list logo