From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21098 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2014 14:11:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20973 invoked by uid 89); 8 Sep 2014 14:11:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f172.google.com) (209.85.220.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:11:41 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hy10so1798869vcb.3 for ; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 07:11:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.30.2 with SMTP id o2mr21488498vdh.12.1410185499517; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 07:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.253.33 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 07:11:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5409C88C.6080209@arm.com> References: <53D0DD61.8050901@arm.com> <5409C88C.6080209@arm.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9][AArch64] Backport r214953: Rename [u]int32x1_t to [u]int32_t (resp 16x1, 8x1)in arm_neon.h From: Marcus Shawcroft To: Alan Lawrence , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00602.txt.bz2 On 5 September 2014 15:28, 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? OK /Marcus