GMP and clang bugginess

Torbjörn Granlund tg at
Mon May 25 20:34:22 UTC 2015

Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at> 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?
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.

Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622

More information about the gmp-devel mailing list