Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) neg, abs and copysign operations on vectors. These we can make > available via builtins (for - of course you don't need it); we already > support them in many back-ends.
Here is my point of view. People using the vector extensions are already writing inherently machine specific code, and they are (ideally) familiar with the instruction set of their processor. I see no significant disadvantage to gcc to granting them easy access to the capabilities of their processor. Saying that these capabilities are available in other ways just amounts to putting an obstacle in their path. If there is a reason to put in that obstacle--e.g., because we are implementing a language standard and the language standard forbids it--then fine. But citing a PowerPC specific standard to forbid code appropriate for the x86 does not count as a sufficient reason in my book. Permitting this extension continues the preexisting behaviour, and it helps programmers and helps existing code. Who does it hurt to permit this extension? Who does it help to forbid this extension? Ian