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
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell)
- Cc: shebs at apple dot com (Stan Shebs), per at bothner dot com (Per Bothner),zlaski at apple dot com (Ziemowit Laski), ira at apple dot com (Ira Ruben),gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org)
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:43:02 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for
> > Now I believe that we do have some leeway to update the AltiVec
> > extension syntax, based on what I know of the size of our installed
> > base and how the code is written. If there is a compromise that
> > allows us to have one version of GCC instead of three, and requires
> > only minor edits of source (such as {} instead of () for constants),
> > I think we will be able to get our users to adopt it.
>
> Good. In that case, I think we have a plan -- go with Richard's
> attribute syntax, which, with appropriate macroization, gets very
> close to the Altivec syntax.
I suggest that the next step is to formally document the proposal, and
then to figure out what remaining differences there are. That is, with
"appropriate macroization", is the only difference the {} vs () for
constants? Or are there other issues as well?