This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: extract/store_bit_field fix
- From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 01 May 2002 17:12:13 +1000
- Subject: Re: extract/store_bit_field fix
- References: <200204302140.RAA27454@makai.watson.ibm.com>
>>>>> "David" == David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>> Geoff Keating writes:
Geoff> All targets support the -maltivec flag, which is what is being tested.
Geoff> The *altivec configury is supposed to only choose the default for the
Geoff> ABI.
Geoff> It's only a compile test, so it doesn't matter if the actual hardware
Geoff> supports altivec or not.
> I am not worried about -maltivec, I am worried about ABI problems
> actually causing the compiler to fail on the other "powerpc" targets and
> that those tests only run for "powerpc-*-*" not "rs6000-*-*".
No, i verified. It makes no difference with or without the altivec
ABI enhancements.
I'm being cautious as to what i test for all of powerpc-*-* as opposed
to powerpc-*-*altivec*. The later should only be used, as you have
specified, for ABI causing problems, or for tests that need to be
executed.
Aldy