[Bug c++/53825] New: Overloading with __m128d and __m256d fails

[Bug c++/53825] New: Overloading with __m128d and __m256d fails

[luc_j_bourhis at mac dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53825

             Bug #: 53825
           Summary: Overloading with __m128d and __m256d fails
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.6
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: luc_j_bourhis@mac.com


~/Developer/Tests/avx> gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.4.6 20110731 (Red Hat 4.4.6-3)
Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

~/Developer/Tests/avx> cat test.cpp 
#include <immintrin.h>

__m128d add(__m128d x, __m128d y) { return x + y; }
__m256d add(__m256d x, __m256d y) { return x + y; }

~/Developer/Tests/avx> g++ -c test.cpp -mavx 2>&1 | c++filt -t
/tmp/ccQx1qcR.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccQx1qcR.s:27: Error: symbol `add(double __vector, double __vector)' is
already defined

[Bug c++/53825] Overloading with __m128d and __m256d fails

[luc_j_bourhis at mac dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53825

--- Comment #1 from Luc J. Bourhis <luc_j_bourhis at mac dot com> 2012-06-30 23:31:26 UTC ---
Sorry, sent too early!

On more recent version of gcc, an error message would have told me to add
"-fabi-version=0".
Doing so with the version at hand does not fix the problem:

~/Developer/Tests/avx> g++ -c test.cpp -mavx -fabi-version=0 2>&1 | c++filt -t
/tmp/ccRdvIOi.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccRdvIOi.s:27: Error: symbol `add(double __vector, double __vector)' is
already defined

[Bug c++/53825] Overloading with __m128d and __m256d fails

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53825

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-06-30 23:49:14 UTC ---
>Doing so with the version at hand does not fix the problem:

Yes because that version did not have the fix.