altivec patches

[Aldy Hernandez]

On Wed, 2001-11-07 at 13:02, David Edelsohn wrote:
> 	I do not understand what the current proposal for
> BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is.  Are you proposing making it 128 all the time or ack
> to selecting the ABI?

i think rth was talking about the stack boundary when he suggested
things needed to be abi dependent.  right now i have left biggest
alignment to be 128 regardless of ABI.

> 	I don't disagree with making BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT 128, but some AIX
> and Darwin macros use BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT and expect it to be 64.  If you
> change BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT, the other macros in rs6000 directory need to use
> 64 or some other symbolic name for 64.

we could change them all to 128.  or if people are paranoid we could set
it to:

	(TARGET_ALTIVEC ? 128 : 64)

which would be dependent on -maltivec, and NOT -mabi=altivec. 
basically, altivec instructions with current abi.

-- 
Aldy Hernandez			E-mail: aldyh@redhat.com
Professional Gypsy
Red Hat, Inc.