From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4876 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2001 20:43:06 -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 4853 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2001 20:43:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO boden.synopsys.com) (204.176.20.19) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2001 20:43:04 -0000 Received: from maiden.synopsys.com (maiden.synopsys.com [146.225.100.170]) by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD597DBA1; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:43:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from atrus.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maiden.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00184; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:43:26 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Buck Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by atrus.synopsys.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA07880; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:43:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200111282043.MAA07880@atrus.synopsys.com> Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for To: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:47:00 -0000 Cc: shebs@apple.com (Stan Shebs), per@bothner.com (Per Bothner), zlaski@apple.com (Ziemowit Laski), ira@apple.com (Ira Ruben), gcc@gcc.gnu.org (gcc@gcc.gnu.org) In-Reply-To: <138670000.1006975533@gandalf.codesourcery.com> from "Mark Mitchell" at Nov 28, 2001 11:25:33 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg01004.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. I suggest that the next step is to formally document the proposal, and then to figure out what remaining differences there are. That is, with "appropriate macroization", is the only difference the {} vs () for constants? Or are there other issues as well? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Buck To: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell) Cc: shebs@apple.com (Stan Shebs), per@bothner.com (Per Bothner), zlaski@apple.com (Ziemowit Laski), ira@apple.com (Ira Ruben), gcc@gcc.gnu.org (gcc@gcc.gnu.org) Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <200111282043.MAA07880@atrus.synopsys.com> References: <138670000.1006975533@gandalf.codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01505.html Message-ID: <20011128124300.QLN-lL0PFdHl0GH6I_HrCJTTuYi2-MdzyinB_zmgOZA@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. I suggest that the next step is to formally document the proposal, and then to figure out what remaining differences there are. That is, with "appropriate macroization", is the only difference the {} vs () for constants? Or are there other issues as well?