On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Janis Johnson wrote: > There are lots of inconsistencies in passing generic vectors as arguments > and return values, and I'll leave those alone until the PowerPC ELF ABI > group decides what to do with them.
Perhaps you'd care to recommend what the semantics *ought* to be, given that they're currently inconsistent? The provisional conclusion at the last ABI call was to add ATR-SOFT-VECTOR-64 and ATR-SOFT-VECTOR-128 to the ABI taxonomy, recognising that the existence of vector types does not depend on the existence of vector registers, but we don't have any associated ABI text to describe associated argument-passing and return rules, only that for Altivec and SPE vectors conditional on ATR-ALTIVEC and ATR-SPE respectively. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
