> That phrasing makes sense to me. It's consistent with the -mbig-endian
> sorry message:
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/oWMeorEeM
I seem to remember that explicitly mentioning GCC in an error message like
that was discouraged but I might be confusing things.
So probably
"GCC's current 'V' implementa
On 7/24/24 08:37, Robin Dapp wrote:
It's really GCC's implementation of the V extension that requires M, not
the actul ISA V extension. So I think the wording could be a little
confusing for users here, but no big deal either way on my end so
Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt
Hmm, fair. How abou
> It's really GCC's implementation of the V extension that requires M, not
> the actul ISA V extension. So I think the wording could be a little
> confusing for users here, but no big deal either way on my end so
>
> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt
Hmm, fair. How about just "the 'V' implementatio
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:25:30 PDT (-0700), Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi,
now with proper diff...
For calculating the value of a poly_int at runtime we use a
multiplication instruction that requires the M extension.
Instead of just asserting and ICEing this patch emits an early
error at option-parsing ti
Hi,
now with proper diff...
For calculating the value of a poly_int at runtime we use a
multiplication instruction that requires the M extension.
Instead of just asserting and ICEing this patch emits an early
error at option-parsing time.
We have several tests that use only "i" (without "m") and
