On 2/25/21 9:40 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 2/25/21 7:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 07:05:26PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>> The compat builtin patch was approved for backporting to GCC10, so we'll
>>> need this fix to go along with it.
>>
>> Okay for that as well
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:40:58PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 2/25/21 7:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 07:05:26PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >> The compat builtin patch was approved for backporting to GCC10, so we'll
> >> need this fix to go along with it.
> >
On 2/25/21 7:08 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:05 PM Peter Bergner wrote:
>>
>> The initialization of compat builtins assumes the builtin we are creating
>> a compatible builtin for exists and ICEs if it doesn't. However, there are
>> valid reasons why some builtins are dis
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 07:05:26PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The initialization of compat builtins assumes the builtin we are creating
> a compatible builtin for exists and ICEs if it doesn't. However, there are
> valid reasons why some builtins are disabled for a particular compile.
> In this
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:05 PM Peter Bergner wrote:
>
> The initialization of compat builtins assumes the builtin we are creating
> a compatible builtin for exists and ICEs if it doesn't. However, there are
> valid reasons why some builtins are disabled for a particular compile.
> In this case,
The initialization of compat builtins assumes the builtin we are creating
a compatible builtin for exists and ICEs if it doesn't. However, there are
valid reasons why some builtins are disabled for a particular compile.
In this case, the MMA builtins are disabled for -mcpu=440 (and other cpus),
so
