From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9669 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2004 09:20:41 -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 9634 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2004 09:20:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.polimi.it) (131.175.12.67) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2004 09:20:40 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (sola12.elet.polimi.it [131.175.124.74]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.polimi.it (Switch-3.0.5/Switch-3.0.0) with ESMTP id i3U9KXaI023964; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:20:34 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <40921A7B.5070005@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:47:00 -0000 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040306) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.devel To: aldyh CC: rth , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: altivec still broken?! References: <20040429142639.GE14457@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040429142639.GE14457@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg01441.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040430154700.USyTIHcG2tfwATBNmavzfHJiZTrg_lLheu5Bdo_6wE0@z> > If so, why the change at all. What code would it affect? I just felt it was right this way... I did not know what code it would affect, but I've now found an answer which I wrote in my other message---template specialization---and in that case it fixes bugs. Paolo