This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [TESTCASE] Minimized testcase for AltiVec segfault
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: aldyh at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:06:00 -0800
- Subject: Re: [TESTCASE] Minimized testcase for AltiVec segfault
- References: <D1D9CD32-2BF2-11D6-87D4-000393750C1E@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:28:15 +1100
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: Aldy Hernandez <email@example.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2002 02:27:40.0116 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E646940:01C1BFFF]
> > All these indicate bugs that should be fixed. I expect most of the
> > bugs are that TARGET_ALTIVEC_ABI was used when it should have been
> > either TARGET_ALTIVEC or nothing.
> agreed, but...
> >> perhaps this needs to be readressed and having -maltivec imply an
> >> abi change^Wenhancement. i for one, wouldn't mind getting
> >> rid of -mabi=altivec, but i believe geoff wanted it that way.
> > No, -maltivec should not change the ABI. It should allow using
> > altivec as much as possible with the current ABI.
> why would anyone want to use -maltivec without -mabi=altivec?
> i see no use for it, especially now that i'm planning on adding
> -mno-vrsave as kumar suggested.
Because they want to link to code that uses the old ABI?
- Geoffrey Keating <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>