This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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 the api.

Also while we are at it, couple of questions about the internals of gcc-rs6000-backend:
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

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]