pengfei added a comment. In D125789#3519433 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789#3519433>, @sheisc wrote:
> In D125789#3519411 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789#3519411>, @pengfei wrote: > >> I think another way is to report the issue to GCC. From the perspective of >> the user, GCC should support both `{%k1} {z}` and `{%k1}{z}`. Then we don't >> need the clange on LLVM. > > Yes. It is a good idea. > However, it appears that there is no such white space in the instructions as > described in Intel's manuals. > So I don't know which one should be the correct format. > Anyway, not a big issue. > I found this problem when using the fuzzer (i.e. AFL) to build Firefox. Yeah. This is an interesting question. I didn't notice the difference between LLVM and GCC. I think either way changing here or GCC is OK :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D125789 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
