This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: altivec: even more boring altivec.h patches
- From: Daniel Egger <degger at fhm dot edu>
- To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 24 Apr 2002 16:02:36 +0200
- Subject: Re: altivec: even more boring altivec.h patches
- References: <20020424111215.GA8324@redhat.com>
Am Mit, 2002-04-24 um 13.12 schrieb Aldy Hernandez:
> more patches from the
> "so-boring-i-can't-believe-i'm-doing-this-i-hate-my-job-somebody-kill-me"
> department.
Haha...
> it turns out a bit of unclear wording in the altivec specs mention that
> we must have overloaded accessor functions for the individual instructions.
Care to share where this unclear wording might be?
> ie. we must have vec_vaddubm(), vec_vadduhm(), vec_adduwm(), ad nauseum
> functions in addition to vec_add(). don't ask me why. i didn't write
> the specs.
This sucks, but....
> --- config/rs6000/altivec.h 24 Apr 2002 10:54:32 -0000
> *************** Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */
> *** 44,50 ****
> /* You are allowed to undef this for C++ compatability. */
> #define vector __vector
>
> ! #define bool unsigned
> #define pixel short
> #define __pixel short
>
> --- 44,50 ----
> /* You are allowed to undef this for C++ compatability. */
> #define vector __vector
>
> ! #define bool signed
> #define pixel short
> #define __pixel short
What is this about and why isn't it mentioned in the ChangeLog?
--
Servus,
Daniel