https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:15:41 2017
New Revision: 252230
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252230&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81622
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 1 16:44:17 2017
New Revision: 250787
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250787&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81622
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 1 16:34:31 2017
New Revision: 250785
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250785&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81622
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (altivec_resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I take back the ARRAY_TYPE thing, apparently it is different for C vs. C++,
> in C one always sees there POINTER_TYPE, while in C++ always ARRAY_TYPE.
> Anyway, y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
I went spelunking and found that the ARRAY_TYPE change was added here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=237077. Looks like a
C++ implementation detail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41875|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I take back the ARRAY_TYPE thing, apparently it is different for C vs. C++, in
C one always sees there POINTER_TYPE, while in C++ always ARRAY_TYPE.
Anyway, your patch seems to be wrong, POINTER_TYPE_P's argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
I should clarify that Richard reviewed the VEC_LD / VEC_ST code chunks. The
other pieces predate me. The stylistic issues were copied from another place
at the time and I missed those, sorry about that...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
This code was reviewed and approved by Richard back when it was first written.
It's been some time since this was written, so I don't recall the origin of the
array type, but it was definitely necessary. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The aligned computation also looks like invalid IL, BIT_AND_EXPR should not
have pointer arguments I believe (though please double check with Richard), so
it should be first cast to corresponding integral typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 41874
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41874&action=edit
Patch under test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Do you see the same behavior with "vec_ld (1, 2);" ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.2
17 matches
Mail list logo
