> You are right, that was a mistake from our side to submit it again. We
> had rediscovered the sequence using our scanning script and I forgot
> that the sequence was harmless in this case. We will update our scripts
> and revert the patch.
OK, thanks in advance.
> The person here with write acc
But isn't that the change I already rejected back in July?
You are right, that was a mistake from our side to submit it again. We
had rediscovered the sequence using our scanning script and I forgot
that the sequence was harmless in this case. We will update our scripts
and revert the patch.
> The sequence
> st
> fdivd / fsqrtd
> std
> was generated in some cases with -mfix-ut699 when there was
> a st before the div/sqrt. This sequence could trigger the b2bst errata.
>
> Now the following safe sequence is generated instead:
> st
> nop
> fdivd / fsqrtd
> std
>
> gcc/Chan
> 2017-11-27 Martin Aberg
>
> * config/sparc/sparc.md (divdf3_fix): Add NOP and adjust length
> to prevent b2bst errata sequence.
> (sqrtdf2_fix): Likewise.
OK for mainline and 7 branch, thanks.
--
Eric Botcazou
The sequence
st
fdivd / fsqrtd
std
was generated in some cases with -mfix-ut699 when there was
a st before the div/sqrt. This sequence could trigger the b2bst errata.
Now the following safe sequence is generated instead:
st
nop
fdivd / fsqrtd
std
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-11-27 Martin A
