This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec)
- From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Cc: 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: 27 Nov 2001 19:13:16 -0600
- Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec)
- References: <26A4D7D4-E39C-11D5-9854-003065C86F94@apple.com>
On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 19:06, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
> > 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"?
ok, that's fine. i probably misread. i'm following the moto pim specs.
--
Aldy Hernandez E-mail: aldyh@redhat.com
Professional Gypsy
Red Hat, Inc.