On Fri, 2021-02-19 at 11:16 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> David Malcolm via Gcc-patches writes:
>
> > I tried several approaches to fixing this; this seemed the
> > least invasive.
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> thanks for fixing this.
>
> I do have a trivial question: are we guaranteed that the middle-end
Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches writes:
> David Malcolm via Gcc-patches writes:
>
>> I tried several approaches to fixing this; this seemed the
>> least invasive.
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> thanks for fixing this.
>
> I do have a trivial question: are we guaranteed that the middle-end will
> not try to add
David Malcolm via Gcc-patches writes:
> I tried several approaches to fixing this; this seemed the
> least invasive.
Hi Dave,
thanks for fixing this.
I do have a trivial question: are we guaranteed that the middle-end will
not try to add any build-in other than a trap?
Regards
Andrea
I tried several approaches to fixing this; this seemed the
least invasive.
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Pushed to trunk as r11-7288-gb258e263e0d74ca1f76aeaac5f4d1abef6b13707.
gcc/jit/ChangeLog:
PR jit/99126
* jit-builtins.c
(gcc::jit::buil