This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Vector Extensions in GCC
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Subject: Re: Vector Extensions in GCC
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:36:45 +0100 (BST)
- cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Stan Shebs wrote:
> in 3.x, and it looks to me like we need to start over (just as well,
> since Motorola has never assigned their copyright).
Why were copyright assignments a problem for this (given that there is an
old assignment from Motorola on file for other changes
GCC Motorola, Computer Group Core Technologies and Systems 1993-08-19
Assigns all changes by Motorola which are incorporated into the FSF's
source base (m68k, m88k support).
)?
> Are overloaded builtins a good idea? If so, do they need any
> special support from generic code?
Overloaded builtins are desirable in order to implement <tgmath.h> in a
sane way - see the projects list. The C front end would need to carry out
overload resolution on builtin calls at a sufficiently early stage, before
it tries to convert argument types or work out what the type of the
expression calling the builtin is. Once that support is in,
target-dependent overloaded builtins are probably fairly harmless.
> If vector constants are a bad idea, what should programmers do
> instead?
The C99 compound literal syntax would be far preferable to the syntax with
parentheses you give an example of. (That is, (vector float) {1.0, 2.0,
3.0, 4.0} instead of (vector float) (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0).)
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk