On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 04:53 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:40:08PM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote:
> > Some of our builtin definitions were allowing invalid parameters, and a
> > subsequent ICE (on invalid code) were the result. This is due to the use of
> > RS
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:40:08PM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote:
> Some of our builtin definitions were allowing invalid parameters, and a
> subsequent ICE (on invalid code) were the result. This is due to the use of
> RS6000_BTI_NOT_OPAQUE (which allowed vector arguments), where a
> RS6000_BT
Hi,
This is (v2), which is notably more comprehensive than (v1).
Some of our builtin definitions were allowing invalid parameters, and a
subsequent ICE (on invalid code) were the result. This is due to the use of
RS6000_BTI_NOT_OPAQUE (which allowed vector arguments), where a
RS6000_BTI_INTSI ap
