On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:58 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:40 AM Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:03 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:59:16PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > So yes, a better solution would be nice but I can't see any since > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > underlying issue is known since a long time and thus the pragmatic > > > > > > > solution is the best (IMHO), also from a QOI perspective. For > > > > > > > intrinsics > > > > > > > it also avoids differences with -O0 vs -O with what we accept and > > > > > > > reject. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a simple patch for GCC 11 by defining __rdtsc and __rdtscp > > > > > > as macros. OK for master? > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to step on anyone's toes by approving this approach, so > > > > > I'd like to ask Richard and Jakub if they agree with the solution. > > > > > > > > I'm OK with the solution for __rdtsc & friends. > > > > > > Ok for me too (temporarily until we have a fix for the general problem). > > > > > > > I suppose there's nothing that guarantees taking the address of an > > > > intrinsic is going to work? > > > > > > I bet one gets tons of different errors that way. After all, for -O0 a > > > lot > > > of intrinsics are macros. And, for those that are inline functions, a lot > > > of them will be rejected if an immediate argument doesn't have a constant > > > value. > > > > LGTM for the patch. > > > > Thanks, > > Uros. > > Here is another one. OK for master?
OK. (In future, please also put ChangeLog in the mail.) Thanks, Uros.
