This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
motorola altivec extension question
- From: Spundun Bhatt <spundun at ISI dot EDU>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:41:56 -0700
- Subject: motorola altivec extension question
I already feel like this question has probably been answered here.
The question is "how different is the motorola-altivec-extension to c in
gcc-3.2 to the motorola hack on 2.95.2?
Googling, the best answer I have found so far is this.
I wanted to confirm that there are no other symantic or name changes in
Also while we are at it, couple of questions about the internals of
In the motorola hacked version of altivec gcc, the builtin vector
functions were prototyped seperately for different data types(i.e.
vector unsigned,vector int etc...). Looking through the new backend, I
could not find that. I found one builting per altivec instruction... its
amusingly simpler, but I just wanted to ask how did you do that? and why
the motorola guys didnt do that?
I am a part of a research project and we are planning to port our work
from 2.95.3 to 3.2. All work is in the rs6000 backend. Any perticular
pitfalls to watchout for? any other advise? any?
Thanx a lot