Re: [LNO, mainline] Remember rs6000 builtins decls

[Devang Patel <dpatel at apple dot com>]

On Jun 7, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Geoff Keating wrote:

> Devang Patel <dpatel@apple.com> writes:
>
> > On Jun 6, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:28:09PM +0300, Ayal Zaks wrote:
> > > > Well, take loads/stores from/to unaligned memory addresses as an
> > > > example.
> > > > The vectorizer needs to know if the target supports such
> > > > operations, and if
> > > > so at what cost. Note that such a cost might be amortized across
> > > > several
> > > > loads/stores, and could determine if the entire loop is worth
> > > > vectorizing
> > > > or not.
> > >
> > > And you get this from tables of FUNCTION_DECLs ... how?
> >
> > In Altivec's case, when vec_add() is encountered instead of
> > generating vector trees, FE adds direct call to Altivec builtins.
>
> That would be a bug.  Why can't it just generate PLUS?  Having a
> function call will make the tree-ssa optimisers much less useful.

So, you are saying that there is no need to have any Altivec builtins
in rs6000 ?

--
Devang