This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: front end changes for altivec
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>
- To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:59:26 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: front end changes for altivec
On 27 Nov 2001, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 09:50, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@cygnus.com> writes:
> >
> > >> The answer from some quarters might be "vector int<4>" or "vector<4> int",
> > >> but this adds complications to the C grammar I don't really want there
> > >> since > can be part of a constant expression (so if going that way then do
> > >> as many as possible of defining disambiguating rules by reference to
> > >> existing practice, proving the existence or nonexistence of ambiguous
> > >> cases, describing how the parsing should be implemented). Or use
> > >> "vector(4)". Or add some other way of specifying a non-default vector
> > >
> > > i've thought about this some more.
> > >
> > > do we really need to specify a vector size? simd architectures
> > > generally have a specific vector size, 64bits for sse* and 128bits for
> > > altivec.
> >
> > SSE is 128 bits.
>
> sorry, mmx then.
>
> which complicates things further... with this mmx and sse and sse2, what
> would the default be for "vector int"? mmx is 64bits (right?) and sse
> is 128bits, so when we talk of vector int, what are we talking about.
I think all these problems show clearly that the extension is poorly thought
out and should not be included in gcc.
Bernd