Altivec (Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal)

[Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>]

On Jan 12, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> And then bystanders gave you constructive comments on how to make it
> much more non-intrusive, to the point where a revised patch might have
> gotten a different reaction.

Let's change this from "might have gotten" to "might get".  The idea of
rewriting this as a less intrusive patch isn't dead, and I hope we can
still find a reasonable technical solution that's acceptable both to gcc
developers and to the end users with large bodies of Altivec code that
uses Motorola syntax.

But I agree that this isn't directly related to the issue of branching 
3.4,
so I've changed the subject line.

			--Matt