--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 10:56
---
We chose not to implement it (I remember discussing it with Jerry and someone
else on IRC, and I think I asked for opinions on the mailing-list before
closing the bugreport as WONTFIX), because of the potential pr
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 07:03 ---
For the mentioed patch see PR 33432
I'm not sure whether it makes sense to implement it, but if one could hide it
behind a -fxor / -fno-xor.
Ifort 10.1 has for instance:
-assume noold_xor
Prevents the compile
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 03:25
---
Thats right Steve and we encourage everyone to use .neqv.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34933
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 02:58 ---
Roger Sayle implemented .xor., but it was not committed to the tree.
You can probably find discussion in the mailing list archive if you
care to do some spelunking. I recall the patch wasn't committed
because of poss
--- Comment #1 from bdavis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 02:51 ---
metcalf and reid, page 40 says that .neqv. is logically the same as XOR.
so, an easy work around is available.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34933
