On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
>> On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
>>> Could we add a test for this to the LLVM regression tests? I think
>>> most people check them before committing things.
>>>
>>> --Owen
Doh! Who ratted me out? ;-)
-bw
On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Evan Cheng wrote:
Bill? You *own* MMX. :-)
Evan
On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
This patch does not make the corresponding change in llvm-gcc-4.*/
gcc/config/i386/llvm-i386.cpp, with the effect that all these
Bill? You *own* MMX. :-)
Evan
On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
This patch does not make the corresponding change in llvm-gcc-4.*/
gcc/config/i386/llvm-i386.cpp, with the effect that all these
builtins are broken. Please fix?
(This shows up easily in the gcc testsuite, I'm
On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
>> Could we add a test for this to the LLVM regression tests? I think
>> most people check them before committing things.
>>
>> --Owen
>
> Yes, but I don't think it's the right idea, in genera
On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
Could we add a test for this to the LLVM regression tests? I think
most people check them before committing things.
--Owen
Yes, but I don't think it's the right idea, in general, for problems
that are llvm-gcc problems (not llvm problems).
Could we add a test for this to the LLVM regression tests? I think
most people check them before committing things.
--Owen
On Jan 4, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
This patch does not make the corresponding change in llvm-gcc-4.*/
gcc/config/i386/llvm-i386.cpp, with the effect tha
