From: Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com>
To: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcroft@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9][AArch64] Backport r214953: Rename [u]int32x1_t to [u]int32_t (resp 16x1, 8x1)in arm_neon.h
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 13:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <540DAE66.7080004@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5409C88C.6080209@arm.com>
(No regressions in check-gcc or check-g++ on aarch64-none-elf.)
--Alan
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?
>
> --Alan
>
> Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>> On 24 July 2014 11:18, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.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.
>>
>> /Marcus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-08 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-24 10:30 [PATCH AArch64] Rename [u]int32x1_t to [u]int32_t (resp 16x1, 8x1) in arm_neon.h Alan Lawrence
2014-09-02 14:44 ` Marcus Shawcroft
2014-09-05 14:28 ` [PATCH 4.9][AArch64] Backport r214953: Rename [u]int32x1_t to [u]int32_t (resp 16x1, 8x1)in arm_neon.h Alan Lawrence
2014-09-08 13:26 ` Alan Lawrence [this message]
2014-09-08 14:11 ` Marcus Shawcroft
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=540DAE66.7080004@arm.com \
--to=alan.lawrence@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=marcus.shawcroft@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).