> So you're more willing to change the 32-bit ABI(s) than > the 64-bit ABI? That doesn't make sense to me.
The way I see it no 32-bit code should be relying on this behaviour since it's not specified in any ABI document. The only portable 32-bit choice (and the entire point of NEON intrinsics is portability) is to take care of the sign yourself and not put scalar polynomials at a public interface. 64-bit code can rely on unsigned since it's required there; and the easiest way to write a compiler satisfying all documentation (as well as behaving sanely) is to make polynomials unsigned everywhere. In reality, I can't imagine this patch being a real issue for anything except the complexity of our codebase. I'd be astonished if there was a single library with a public interface exposing a poly8_t or poly16_t. Or compiling half its code with GCC and half with Clang. But that said, I will of course rewrite to make it AArch64 conditional (typing through gritted teeth) if required. Just say the word. Tim. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
