From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
To: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
Cc: Ira Ruben <ira@apple.com>, Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111271434380.6774-100000@www.cgsoftware.com>
References: <3C03E683.5010405@bothner.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01367.html
Message-ID: <20011127113500.tnGxxdigE1WnVX7lrOiFURweCJby9EJhG389PalXEeU@z>

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Per Bothner wrote:

> Ira Ruben wrote:
>
> > At 9:47 AM -0800 11/27/01, Stan Shebs wrote:
> >
> > I'm not going to get into a debate with you about design decisions of
> > the past when you weren't there and don't know the context in which
> > those were made.  It may be your opinion about how "hard" it is to
> > support "vector" this way.
>
> You're missing the point, which is not how easy or hard it is to implement
> the feature.  The hard part is coming up with an acceptable, well-defined,
> documented, portable feature that makes sense in the context of gcc,
> that can be maintained, and that you can get the gcc maintainers to
> agree to.
>
> > I do not agree.  If it was so easy for MrC[pp] and I assume Mcc and MW
> > I do not see a problem with gcc.
>
> Perhaps because we here have a longer-term perspective, or because we
> have different
> priorities.  We support vastly more targets than they do.
>
And more to the point, we already have targets with different vector
sizes.
It's not just a theoretical possibility.
It already exists.

>     --Per Bothner
>
>