This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PING: A Far Less Ambitious AltiVec patch
> From: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:52:12 -0800
> On 20 Feb, 2004, at 14.20, Geoff Keating wrote:
>
> >> From: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:05:47 -0800
> >
> >> On 20 Feb, 2004, at 13.49, Geoff Keating wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> That's worse. Use reg_names always.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't -- non-Darwin assemblers will barf on it.
> >>>
> >>> No, they won't. Try it and see.
> >>
> >> Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg01298.html
> >> for
> >> testimony by someone who's tried it.
> >
> > I don't see any reference to reg_names in that message. You might
> > want to investigate how reg_names gets set.
>
> From the REGISTER_NAMES macro, which in turn points (in our case) at
> rs6000_reg_names (just register numbers), which (#if TARGET_REGNAMES)
> actually gets clobbered with alt_reg_names (register names, preceded by
> %).
> Which tells me absolutely nothing about how this is supposed to behave
> on
> other platforms.
>
> Please advise on how to proceed.
Well, you can investigate further in order to determine why using
reg_names is correct and how it works, or you could just assume that
I'm right and it is correct. Your choice.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>