On 4/1/21 10:33 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
RMS once asked me about the status of fused multiply-add support in glibc.
I don't know why. He wasn't asking for any changes or objecting to
anything the glibc maintainers had done. I'd hope that future Chief
GNUisances won't try to get involved in detai
On 07/26/16 16:55, Warren D Smith wrote:
And they said "only if available in implementation" which gcc chose to
interpret as
"we're not going to make other sizes available, hahahaha."
"if available in implementation" probably means "if supported by the
underlying hardware".
So, if your hardw
Ok, I'm not affiliated with gcc, nor a committer, I just
happen to work on a port to a local architecture.
Your first posts were funny to read, and you ignored the answers,
and now it's getting old.
Not talking for the gcc community, I suggest that you go
away and come back when you have code to
Hi,
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/simd-5.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/simd-5.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ main(){
vector64 int a = {1, -1};
vector64 int b = {2, -2};
c = -a + b*b*(-1LL);
-/* c is now {5, 3} */
+/* c is now {-5, -3} */
printf("result is %llx\n", (long long)c)
On 5/12/23 09:53, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
With all that to consider, is it *really* a significant cost to add
-fpermissive?
See above (and my earlier message): the significant cost is to
discover the root cause of the problem, and that -fpermissive is the
solution. The rest might be rel
