[PATCH 4.9][AArch64] Backport r214953: Rename [u]int32x1_t to [u]int32_t (resp 16x1, 8x1)in arm_neon.h
Mon Sep 8 13:26:00 GMT 2014
(No regressions in check-gcc or check-g++ on aarch64-none-elf.)
Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Some manual editing of patch required due to e.g. int64x1 changes present on
> trunk but not on the 4.9 branch; new patch attached.
> I've done a quick smoke test of aarch64.exp+simd.exp (check-gcc) and the g++
> neon ABI test, as these ought to catch any changes to Neon intrinsics; full
> testsuite running.
> I repeat, this is source-code-compatibility breaking, but not ABI breaking; if
> it causes you any problems, it'll be the 4.9.x compiler shouting at you ;).
> Ok assuming no regressions?
> Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>> On 24 July 2014 11:18, Alan Lawrence <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> The ACLE spec does not mention the int32x1_t, uint32x1_t, int16x1_t,
>>> uint16x1_t, int8x1_t or uint8x1_t types currently in arm_neon.h, but just
>>> 'standard' types int32_t, int16_t, etc. This patch is a global
>>> search-and-replace across arm_neon.h (and the tests that depend on it).
>>> Regressed (check-gcc and check-g++) on aarch64-none-elf.
>> OK for trunk.
>>> The question of backporting to 4.9 has been raised internally. There is no
>>> ABI issue, as int32x1_t was merely a typedef to int32_t (etc.). However
>>> there is a source code compatibility issue; code mentioning the 32x1 types,
>>> i.e. not conforming to the ACLE spec, which previously compiled, will no
>>> longer do so. My personal feeling is therefore not to backport this, but I
>>> would welcome input from maintainers (and others)...?
>> I doubt that there is currently much code out there that will be
>> affected by this change and that it would be better to back port and
>> hence limit the amount of code written against the broken arm_neon.h
>> during the life of the 4.9.x series. If there are no objections to
>> back porting in the next couple of days then go ahead.
More information about the Gcc-patches