public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "noloader at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/68081] Cygwin GCC cannot compile program that uses __builtin_ia32_rdseed64_step
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 12:39:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-68081-4-GEGpb9Se9y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-68081-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68081

--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey Walton <noloader at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> This comment makes no sense (sorry, couldn't find a nice way to say it).
> 
> > Intel builds software
> 
> We are talking about gcc, not Intel software. Documentation is not fast or
> slow.

Yeah, I can understand how it can be confusing. One thing I know is Intel now
documents some of the penalties for using AMD. The FTC required it in their
settlement.

How can we determine what applies, and what does not apply, from the various
Intel docs?

Maybe it would be better if GCC just documented things on its own, and stopped
relying on outside documentation?

> ...
> I was never in favor of documenting those builtins, it makes people believe
> that they can use them...

I thought I was allowed to use documented functions; and I was not supposed to
use undocumented ones. Yeah, this seems to be turned on its head :)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-10-25 12:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-24 20:38 [Bug c/68081] New: " noloader at gmail dot com
2015-10-24 20:52 ` [Bug target/68081] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-10-24 20:58 ` noloader at gmail dot com
2015-10-24 21:11 ` noloader at gmail dot com
2015-10-25  8:09 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-10-25 10:44 ` noloader at gmail dot com
2015-10-25 12:08 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-10-25 12:39 ` noloader at gmail dot com [this message]
2021-04-03 10:22 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-68081-4-GEGpb9Se9y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).