From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9481 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2001 01:06:38 -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 9460 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2001 01:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out2.apple.com) (17.254.0.51) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2001 01:06:37 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAS16bX17968 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:06:29 -0800 Received: from johada (johada.apple.com [17.202.41.77]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAS16SH07318; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:06:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:08:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v472) Cc: Dale Johannesen , Stan Shebs , Ziemowit Laski , Ira Ruben , gcc@gcc.gnu.org To: Aldy Hernandez From: Dale Johannesen In-Reply-To: <1006909118.5178.49.camel@litecycle.cc.andrews.edu> Message-Id: <26A4D7D4-E39C-11D5-9854-003065C86F94@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.472) X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00935.txt.bz2 > i would love to do this. the problem is that i NEED to implement a way > of doing "vector int foo" (with no vector(xx) int foo) for my work. so > if there's no way to accomplish this i'll have to come up with two sets > of patches: one to do "vector_size(4) int foo" (for fsf) and one to do > "vector int foo" for altivec for --well, for my day job. > > i see no portable acceptable way of doing "vector int foo". Actually "vector int foo" isn't acceptable according to the Moto docs; you have to say "vector signed int foo" or "vector unsigned int foo" explicitly. And the Apple/Moto implementation follows the doc. Do you have to deal with existing code that uses "vector int foo"? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dale Johannesen To: Aldy Hernandez Cc: Dale Johannesen , Stan Shebs , Ziemowit Laski , Ira Ruben , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <26A4D7D4-E39C-11D5-9854-003065C86F94@apple.com> References: <1006909118.5178.49.camel@litecycle.cc.andrews.edu> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01436.html Message-ID: <20011127170600.-JMjxnI6dFmo088jZSbhrkqlsCbk7o59C_akDFSsm44@z> > i would love to do this. the problem is that i NEED to implement a way > of doing "vector int foo" (with no vector(xx) int foo) for my work. so > if there's no way to accomplish this i'll have to come up with two sets > of patches: one to do "vector_size(4) int foo" (for fsf) and one to do > "vector int foo" for altivec for --well, for my day job. > > i see no portable acceptable way of doing "vector int foo". Actually "vector int foo" isn't acceptable according to the Moto docs; you have to say "vector signed int foo" or "vector unsigned int foo" explicitly. And the Apple/Moto implementation follows the doc. Do you have to deal with existing code that uses "vector int foo"?