This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec)
- From: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>, Ira Ruben <ira at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:06:28 -0800
- Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec)
> i would love to do this. the problem is that i NEED to implement a way
> of doing "vector int foo" (with no vector(xx) int foo) for my work. so
> if there's no way to accomplish this i'll have to come up with two sets
> of patches: one to do "vector_size(4) int foo" (for fsf) and one to do
> "vector int foo" for altivec for --well, for my day job.
> i see no portable acceptable way of doing "vector int foo".
Actually "vector int foo" isn't acceptable according to the Moto docs;
you have to say "vector signed int foo" or "vector unsigned int foo"
explicitly. And the Apple/Moto implementation follows the doc. Do
you have to deal with existing code that uses "vector int foo"?