From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14289 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2001 21:44:18 -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 14177 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2001 21:44:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dot.cygnus.com) (205.180.230.224) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2001 21:44:12 -0000 Received: (from rth@localhost) by dot.cygnus.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fARLhZR30149; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:43:35 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: dot.cygnus.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:31:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Ziemowit Laski Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec) Message-ID: <20011127134335.B30114@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Ziemowit Laski , "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <6E5F268F-E37C-11D5-AE62-0030658361CA@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <6E5F268F-E37C-11D5-AE62-0030658361CA@apple.com>; from zlaski@apple.com on Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:19:24PM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00886.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:19:24PM -0800, Ziemowit Laski wrote: > > provide well-defined ways of using target-specific features without > > causing problems for the rest of the compiler. > > The main thrust of my proposal has been to create a mechanism intended > PRECISELY to prevent problems for the rest of the compiler. Nevertheless, there are many other targets for gcc that do support some form of SIMD, and thus we ought to come up with a solution that works across all of them. > But is there any harm in INCLUDING them in the tree? I do not want to hack up our build mechanism. It's already horrible. Given that there appear to be several folks interested in this, it might be acceptable to have an altivec branch in the regular gcc repository, but that's as far as I'd be willing to let it go. r~ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Henderson To: Ziemowit Laski Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20011127134335.B30114@redhat.com> References: <6E5F268F-E37C-11D5-AE62-0030658361CA@apple.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01387.html Message-ID: <20011127134400.Gvmvr7dORygvcIU4S0OJfnku8ZmnRXVHrH93T1v2y8s@z> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:19:24PM -0800, Ziemowit Laski wrote: > > provide well-defined ways of using target-specific features without > > causing problems for the rest of the compiler. > > The main thrust of my proposal has been to create a mechanism intended > PRECISELY to prevent problems for the rest of the compiler. Nevertheless, there are many other targets for gcc that do support some form of SIMD, and thus we ought to come up with a solution that works across all of them. > But is there any harm in INCLUDING them in the tree? I do not want to hack up our build mechanism. It's already horrible. Given that there appear to be several folks interested in this, it might be acceptable to have an altivec branch in the regular gcc repository, but that's as far as I'd be willing to let it go. r~