* [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm
[not found] <bug-91886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-03-16 20:05 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-16 20:07 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-16 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #36 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #34)
> Per the IBM docs, LE/elfv2 (which they confusingly equate)
Where do you see this, btw? The introduction of the ABI doc says
> The OpenPOWER ELF V2 ABI is intended for use in little- and big-endian environments.
and I don't see it contradict that elsewhere.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm
[not found] <bug-91886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-16 20:05 ` [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm segher at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-16 20:07 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-01 8:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-16 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #37 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Oh, hrm, I am looking at an older version. Ugh.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm
[not found] <bug-91886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-16 20:05 ` [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-16 20:07 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-01 8:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-01 16:22 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-01 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #38 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This PR is a mess ... for one "ws" is said to be invalid but then there's
talk about still allowing it for backward compatibility. But I see no action
here?
P1. If it ends up the last release blocker I'll turn this bug into INVALID.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm
[not found] <bug-91886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-01 8:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-01 16:22 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-01 16:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-01 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #39 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
commit 07fe4af4d51d74b63a76ea632d4db01d1f69f037
Author: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed Mar 18 21:58:45 2020 +0000
rs6000: Add back some w* constraints (PR91886)
In May and June last year I deleted many of our (vector) constraints.
We can now just use "wa" for those, together with some other
conditions, which can be per alternative using the "enabled" attribute
(which in turn primarily uses the "isa" attribute).
But, it turns out that Clang implements some of those constraints as
well, and at least musl uses some of them. It is easy for us to add
those contraints back (as undocumented aliases to "wa", which always
did mean the same thing for valid inline assembler code), so do that.
gcc/
* config/rs6000/constraints.md (wd, wf, wi, ws, ww): New undocumented
aliases for "wa".
(I forgot to mark it appropriately, whoops).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm
[not found] <bug-91886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-01 16:22 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-01 16:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-01 16:42 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-01 17:43 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-01 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thus fixed in r10-7269-g07fe4af4d51d74b63a76ea632d4db01d1f69f037 then?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm
[not found] <bug-91886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-01 16:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-01 16:42 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-01 17:43 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-01 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #41 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug target/91886] [10 regression] powerpc64 impossible constraint in asm
[not found] <bug-91886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-01 16:42 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-01 17:43 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-01 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #42 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I said FIXED. Grr, BZ.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread