GMP and clang bugginess

[Torbjörn Granlund]

Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at inria.fr> writes:

  >  	bc+	12, 28, L(9)
  >  vs.
  >  	blt+	cr7, L(24)
  >
  > Note that the former form works with clang 3.5 installs.  A 3.6
  > regression?
  
  Indeed...
  
One may debate what is a valid instruction form.  I suppose one needs to
read the specs for what IBM calls "extended" mnemonics/instructions.

The bc form allows numeric arguments specifying static branch
prediction.  With + and some numeric value, things can be seen as
redundant and/or contradictory.

-- 
Torbjörn
Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622