From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7030 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2008 01:36:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 6850 invoked by uid 48); 12 Feb 2008 01:35:15 -0000 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080212013515.6849.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/34526] no-altivec ABI should be fixed or no longer be the default In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "janis at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg01217.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #10 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-12 01:35 ------- I'm still plugging away at this since I keep thinking of more things I might have broken. I've got some good new tests for the testsuite now that check how arguments and return values are actually passed for powerpc64-linux -m32 and -m64. I also have little tests, not for the testsuite, to check that I haven't broken argument and return passing for AIX and Darwin by comparing generated assembly with and without my patch. For those I've only tried 32-bit code and need to find out how to configure to build a cross cc1 for 64-bit code. There are lots of other powerpc targets I'd like to check; any suggestions for target triples for which to build cross cc1? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34526