Mark Shinwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here, the compiler is not complaining about an attempt to implicitly > convert a vector of four 16-bit quantities to a vector of eight > 8-bit quantities. > > This lack of type safety is unsettling, and I wonder if it should be fixed > with a patch along the lines of the (not yet fully tested) one below. Does > that sound reasonable? It seems right to try to fix the generic code here, > even though the testcase in hand is target-specific. If this approach > is unreasonable, I guess some target-specific hooks will be needed.
I personally think it is a good idea to require an explicit cast. This comes up with C++ overloaded functions as well. In the backend I wrote for a vector processor, I added a command line option. Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm almost sure this is a regression, and older versions of GCC > implemented exactly what you propose. It's been this way at least since 4.0. I believe that the problem with changing this unconditionally is that the Altivec programming guidelines specify the rules which gcc currently follows: you are permitted to assign one vector variable to another, without an explicit cast, when the vectors are the same size. So please check the Altivec programming manual. Ian
