Re: pass -maltivec to assembler

[degger at fhm dot edu]

On  9 Nov, Aldy Hernandez wrote:

> does -m7400 enable altivec extensions?

Yes.
 
> either way, altivec support for gcc is not complete yet, so what's
> wrong with having people update their binutils?  i mean, this is cvs
> gcc we're talking about-- you're supposed to be on the cutting edge...
> :)

Well, well, I for one have the latest gcc always in a different location
so I can easily export CC with the new place of gcc. Doing the same with
the binutils i.e. having two different versions installed in different
places has a much bigger PITA factor and really: I wouldn't want to
replace software in a production environment by CVS versions, never
touch a running system.

> it just makes more sense to have -maltivec in both gcc and gas.

That is true. Though I don't understand why it is necessary to have
a -maltivec (or whatever switch) to gas at all. After all if the
compiler generates such code you probably want the assembler to assemble
it and since there are no other implications it is IMHO superfluous to 
have such an option instead of activating it simply.

--
Servus,
       Daniel