Re: A Far Less Ambitous AltiVec patch

[Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>]

On 2 Feb, 2004, at 15.38, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:
>
> > Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > > + /* The "-faltivec" option should have been called "-maltivec" all 
> > > > along.  */
> > > > + #define SUBTARGET_OPTION_TRANSLATE_TABLE				\
> > > > +   { "-faltivec", "-maltivec -include altivec.h" },	\
> > > > +   { "-fno-altivec", "-mno-altivec" },	\
> > >
> > > Do we really need another option (even if just for Darwin)?  This is
> > > just plain sick.  Can't you make -maltivec include altivec.h just for
> > > darwin?
> >
> > No.  -maltivec is not the "everything you might possibly want that's
> > related to altivec" flag.  It very specifically means "generate code
> > for a CPU with altivec instructions".  It should not change ABI or the
> > language that is compiled, only code generation.
>
> I object in principle to any change that involves including header
> files behind the user's back.

How does that differ from emitting tons of builtins behind the user's 
back? :-)

--Zem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski                 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K
Mac OS X Compiler Group        Cupertino, CA USA  95014-2083
Apple Computer, Inc.           +1.408.974.6229  Fax .5477