On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
> messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
> CPU and the enablement of VSX instructions. This patch does just that.
>
> Bootstr
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 02:00:02PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:45:02AM -0600, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> > I guess I'm being pedantic. "requires -mcpu=power8 and -mvsx" is not
> > accurate from a user's point a view, as "-mcpu=power8" is sufficient,
> > since "-mvsx"
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:02 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> > It's not a strong objection, since specifying "-mno-vsx" should be
> > uncommon. (Right?) And, specifying "-mcpu=power8 -mvsx" is harmless.
>
> Maybe the warning could say "requires -mcpu=power8 (and -mvsx)"? Is
> that clearer, to
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:45:02AM -0600, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> I guess I'm being pedantic. "requires -mcpu=power8 and -mvsx" is not
> accurate from a user's point a view, as "-mcpu=power8" is sufficient,
> since "-mvsx" is enabled when "-mcpu=power8" is specified.
To be really pedantic, -mcpu=
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:00:07AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 11/17/21 10:54 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
> >> messag
On 11/17/21 10:54 AM, Paul A. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
>> messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
>> CPU and the enablem
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
> messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
> CPU and the enablement of VSX instructions. This patch does just th
Hi! During a previous patch review, Segher asked that I provide better
messages when builtins are unavailable because they require both a minimum
CPU and the enablement of VSX instructions. This patch does just that.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Is this o
