: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arieltorti14 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
There are many implemented x86 builtins that are not documented, namely:
__builtin_ia32_bsrsi
__builtin_ia32_bsrdi
__builtin_ia32_rolqi
__builtin_ia32_rolhi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
--- Comment #2 from Ariel Torti ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> You shouldn't use those, they are for internal use only. That's the reason
> they are not documented.
Yes, my mistake. I just read
https://www.mail-archive.com/g
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arieltorti14 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47113&action=edit
PoC ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
--- Comment #6 from Ariel Torti ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > Those are intrinsics and most of them are documented in the Intel
> > architecture manuals, or various web sites. N
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arieltorti14 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm implementing a builtin to read the overflow flag. It is meant to be used to
simply the overflow checking code, instead of doing
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arieltorti14 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Right now GCC provides `__builtin_sub_overflow` to check for overflows during
subtraction, but there's not way to check for underflow, other than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229
--- Comment #2 from Ariel Torti ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> Built-in functions related to integer overflow should be defined in terms
> of the C abstract machine model, not in terms of processor flags.
They shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92230
Ariel Torti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #5 from Ariel Torti ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019, arieltorti14 at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> You can write an asm to access a flag, it will just be whatever value the
> flag has for whatever code
