From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24359 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2001 19:31:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24338 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2001 19:30:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.codesourcery.com) (66.60.148.227) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2001 19:30:57 -0000 Received: from gandalf.codesourcery.com (IDENT:mitchell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gandalf.codesourcery.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fASJPX822608; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:25:33 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:24:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: Stan Shebs cc: Per Bothner , Ziemowit Laski , Ira Ruben , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec) Message-ID: <138670000.1006975533@gandalf.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <3C05388A.3D69EEBB@apple.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00996.txt.bz2 > Now I believe that we do have some leeway to update the AltiVec > extension syntax, based on what I know of the size of our installed > base and how the code is written. If there is a compromise that > allows us to have one version of GCC instead of three, and requires > only minor edits of source (such as {} instead of () for constants), > I think we will be able to get our users to adopt it. Good. In that case, I think we have a plan -- go with Richard's attribute syntax, which, with appropriate macroization, gets very close to the Altivec syntax. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Mitchell To: Stan Shebs Cc: Per Bothner , Ziemowit Laski , Ira Ruben , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes foraltivec) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <138670000.1006975533@gandalf.codesourcery.com> References: <3C05388A.3D69EEBB@apple.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01497.html Message-ID: <20011128113100.0anaXAbtdXY-q8oFEoW2vZW3ZmqxF7XWyoN_NDVM2hM@z> > Now I believe that we do have some leeway to update the AltiVec > extension syntax, based on what I know of the size of our installed > base and how the code is written. If there is a compromise that > allows us to have one version of GCC instead of three, and requires > only minor edits of source (such as {} instead of () for constants), > I think we will be able to get our users to adopt it. Good. In that case, I think we have a plan -- go with Richard's attribute syntax, which, with appropriate macroization, gets very close to the Altivec syntax. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com