This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Implicit altivec vs. linux kernel build

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba dot org>, Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel dot crashing dot org>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:40:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Implicit altivec vs. linux kernel build
References: <1109545242.14992.234.camel@gaston> <200502272335.j1RNZDD27844@makai.watson.ibm.com>

On Feb 27, 2005, at 6:35 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:

	As Andrew Pinski mentioned, you also can use -mcpu=970
-mno-altivec.  That should allow the assembler to accept Altivec
instructions, but GCC will not know about any Altivec registers for
inlined assembly parameters.

As I and Ben found out that does not work, altivec is still turned on and there is no way to turn it off. Alan has a patch which he is going to post (again) on my request to fix the problem with "-mcpu=power4 -maltivec", I don't know if -mno-altivec will work though.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Implicit altivec vs. linux kernel build
  - From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt

References:
- Re: Implicit altivec vs. linux kernel build
  - From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: Implicit altivec vs. linux kernel build
  - From: David Edelsohn

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]