This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR/17836 (was Re: [RFA/RFT] Tree-level lowering of generic vectors, part 4)
- From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- To: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at polimi dot it>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:47:42 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR/17836 (was Re: [RFA/RFT] Tree-level lowering of generic vectors, part 4)
- References: <1098865485.417f5b4d9b7e1@webmail.polimi.it>
>>>>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
Paolo> Types are the same independent of whether -maltivec is used or not. Modes
Paolo> aren't.
Paolo> Or do you mean I could test, rather than TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (vectype) >= 4,
Paolo> TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (vectype)) == {QImode, HImode, SImode, SFmode} ?
My question is why do you need to change the test at all? The
goal is for Altivec modes to be passed in Altivec registers, if Altivec is
enabled, and all other vector modes more than twice the GPR size to be
passed by reference.
I do not understand the purpose of changing from testing the
specific vector modes that Altivec supports to testing the vector size and
the number of elements. Altivec is not going to be used to pass any other
vector modes that are the same vector size.
David