I'll check that out and update the patch. Thanks,
Filipe On Wednesday, May 7, 2014, Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 May 2014 21:52, Filipe Cabecinhas > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Ah, I hadn't thought of that. > > But it seems that the gcc manual explicitly says they're functions and > that > > they're available: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/X86-Built-in-Functions.html#X86-Built-in-Functions > > I'm not sure, but I suppose we should keep them if they're documented as > > available, right? Or are we not maintaining compatibility here (our > manual > > doesn't mention these builtins, AFAICT)? > > We should keep them, but it seems valid to implement them as macros. > We don't support doing anything with the intrinsics other than calling > them. For example: > > void *f = __builtin_ia32_pblendw256; > > causes > > test.c:3:11: error: builtin functions must be directly called > > with clang. GCC is not as user friendly and simply fails at link time > with an undefined reference to the intrinsic. > > > I also don't see any other intrinsic doing the same (which doesn't mean > we > > can't start now, obviously). > > We do it for some altivec intrinsics. > > Cheers, > Rafael >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
