On 27/02/24 8:26 am, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2024/2/27 10:13, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> On 2/26/24 7:55 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> on 2024/2/26 23:07, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>
>>> Good point, or maybe just an explicit -mvsx like some existing ones, which
>>> can avoid to only test some fixed cpu type.
>>
>> If a simple "-O1 -vsx" is enough to expose the ICE on an unpacthed
>> compiler and a PASS on a patched compiler, then I'm all for it.
>> Jeevitha, can you try confirming that?
Yes, Peter, I've confirmed that using "-O1 -mvsx" is sufficient to expose the
issue on the unpatched compiler and ensure successful compilation on the patched
one.
>
> Jeevitha, can you also check why we have the different behavior on GCC 11 when
> you get time? GCC 12 has new built-in framework, so this ICE gets exposed,
> but
> IMHO it would still be good to double check the previous behavior is due to
> some miss support or some other latent bug. Thanks in advance!
Sure Kewen, I will have a look.
Jeevitha
