http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-02 13:40:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Created attachment 24234 [details] > > Proposed patch > > > > The attached patch seems to fix the testcase and doesn't > > regress neon.exp. I'll test it fully next week. > > We still generate more moves than necessary, but that's > > a separate problem. > > I think we should try to preserve the existing internal API, so that if > someone > manages to pick up an older version of arm_neon.h they won't get bizarre > errors > out of the compiler. That shouldn't be such a big issue though. It's relatively common for changes in GCC behaviour (such as extra front-end strictness) to need fixincludes to be used on some older headers. If you manage to pull in the unfixed versions, you'll get strange errors. And this certainly wouldn't be the only case in which GCC needs the right version of its own headers to be used. How strongly do you object? I think the benefits are worth any compatibility drawbacks in this case.
