https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #12 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon Apr 10 19:01:37 2017
New Revision: 246818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-04-10 Kelvin Nilsen
PR targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #11 from Michael Meissner ---
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:35:20PM +, kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
>
> --- Comment #9 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I've got a patch no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #10 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW, I tried another variant on the patch, which is shown below. This variant
handles all of the p9-specific target options the same, as seen below:
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #9 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've got a patch now that resolves this problem without creating regressions.
I'm attaching it for "discussion" here before I post for "official review".
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Kelvin,
405 does not have VSX (or even VMX). The instructions enabled by
-mpower9-minmax require VSX. The following behaviours all make
sense, for -mcpu=405 -mpower9-minmax:
1) Ignore the latter o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #7 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll pursue the recommendations offered by Michael and Bill.
Aside: as I read the existing implementation, I believe the more "consistent"
behavior would be to behave as suggested in my original "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
For stage 4, fixing this particular error combination (along with what Mike
suggests) should be enough. There is a vast array of ridiculous option
combinations that should no doubt be rejected, but let's not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:14:38PM +, kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
>
> kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to kelvin from comment #2)
> I'm seeking consensus on the "right thing to do". Should I make sure that
> -mpower9-minmax turns on whatever additional target options are necessary in
> order to make t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #3 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Wed Mar 29 17:23:58 2017
New Revision: 246572
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246572&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use this branch for work on PR 80108.
Added:
branches/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
13 matches
Mail list logo
