--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30254
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 00:50 ---
Confirmed, I did not have time over the winter break to look at this bug, maybe
on the 15th or next weekend while I am in Tahoe.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-18 20:07 ---
One more point to all this issues if you do configure GCC with --with-cpu=cell
or --with-cpu=970, etc. or use -mcpu=cell, -mcpu=970, -maltivec is enabled by
default.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from iano at apple dot com 2006-12-18 20:24 ---
A gcc test case that verfies behavior in this area would drive conformance by
external vendors like IBM.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that GCC even has an approved method for
determining if the PIM is active.
--
--- Comment #5 from iano at apple dot com 2006-12-18 20:52 ---
I will nominate the following as a test case. It should compile without
errors:
for each affected arch:
gcc test_case.c
gcc test_case.c -maltivec
gcc test_case.c -faltivec
gcc test_case.c -maltivec -DINCLUDE_HEADER
