>-----Original Message-----
>From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
>ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard Henderson
>Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:12 PM
>To: Iyer, Balaji V
>Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Gabriel Dos Reis; Aldy
>Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merging Cilk Plus into Trunk (Patch 1 of approximately 22)
>
>On 09/11/2012 10:14 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> The function mangling handles several of the version inconsistencies
>> you have mentioned. If the CPU revisions, vector lengths are not the
>> same between the function declaration and the function, then the name
>> of the function will be different and the linker should complain.
>
>Sure. I get that. And that works for code within a single project.
>
>But that means that if you build a shared library containing one of these
>elemental functions, its external ABI changes depending on what compiler flags
>you build it with.
>
>Can you not understand how totally unacceptable this is?
Hello Richard,
Thank you very much for pointing this out to us. We do see the
problem with the default case (when the processor clause is not specified by
the user) of elemental functions attribute. We have also found a solution.
Since this has to do with the calling convention for elemental functions, it
requires a fix to both the Intel compiler and to gcc. It will take us a couple
weeks to validate this. I will re-implement this and send out another patch as
soon as possible. In the meantime, I will work on the array notation patches,
so we can keep making forward progress.
Thanks again for pointing this out
Yours Sincerely,
Balaji V. Iyer.
>
>
>r~
>
>
>
