Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
I think that front ends should be allowed to omits zeros for
initializers for variables with static storage duration, but not other
initializers, independent of what C99 says.
I think we "read past each other". I was just countering what
(I read as) your statement th
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >>> The documention on VECTOR_CST is not clear if we can have missing
> >>> elements in that the remaining elements are zero. Right we produce such
>
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
The documention on VECTOR_CST is not clear if we can have missing
elements in that the remaining elements are zero. Right we produce such
VECTOR_CST for things like:
#define vector __attribute__((vector_s
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > The documention on VECTOR_CST is not clear if we can have missing
> > elements in that the remaining elements are zero. Right we produce such
> > VECTOR_CST for things like:
> > #define vector __attribute__((vector_size(16) ))
>
Andrew Pinski wrote:
The documention on VECTOR_CST is not clear if we can have missing
elements in that the remaining elements are zero. Right we produce such
VECTOR_CST for things like:
#define vector __attribute__((vector_size(16) ))
vector int a = {1, 2};
But is that valid? We currently pro
The documention on VECTOR_CST is not clear if we can have missing
elements in that the remaining elements are zero. Right we produce such
VECTOR_CST for things like:
#define vector __attribute__((vector_size(16) ))
vector int a = {1, 2};
But is that valid? We currently produce a VECTOR_CST with
