Re: motorola altivec extension question

[Spundun Bhatt <spundun at ISI dot EDU>]

Is this not the correct mailing list for this question? If not, could 
you tell me where to post this question?
Thanx
Spundun

Spundun Bhatt wrote:

> 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. 
> http://www.simdtech.org/apps/group_public/email/altivec/msg03916.html
> 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
> Spundun