https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48bd780ee327c9ae6ffc0641e73cc1f4939fb204
commit r12-7030-g48bd780ee327c9ae6ffc0641e73cc1f4939fb204
Author: Bill Schmidt
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #11 from Will Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #10)
> It turns out not to be undocumented -- but I'd like to remove it anyway.
> Any objections?
Realistically I believe I was the only user of that feature, was to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
It turns out not to be undocumented -- but I'd like to remove it anyway. Any
objections?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is an internal (debugging) option. It isn't documented in the manual, but
indeed it is not marked as Undocumented in rs6000.opt .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
-m[no-]fold-gimple is also a very badly named user option since it suggests
that 'fold' and 'gimple' are terms known to programmers. I'm just guessing
it was added to avoid "inlining" intrinsics as GIMPLE,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
if (bif_is_mmaint (rs6000_builtin_info_x[uns_fcode])
&& !rs6000_fold_gimple)
is what you're looking for. However, I would much rather see rejection of the
-mno-fold-gimple flag when MMA is enabled. Sil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
More properly, please don't rely on a bit that is being destroyed by the new
support. You need to look at built-in function attributes instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Please don't make changes to the old builtin support, which has been disabled.
:-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
Maybe something like this untested patch:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index d9736eaf21c..c7babefa32d 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
+++ b/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #1)
> I think that the MMA implementation is incompatible with -mno-fold-gimple.
> We'll need to prevent that flag combination, I think.
Does -mno-fold-gimple really
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think that the MMA implementation is incompatible with -mno-fold-gimple.
We'll need to prevent that flag combination, I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103686
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
14 matches
Mail list logo
