------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10 20:04 ------- > If addvsi3 actually performs addvdi3, that will be most surprising to > everyone. I think that's a very bad idea. Since we are not invoking > addvsi3, > and I suspect it's impossible to convince the compiler to do so,
After your patch, that's indeed the case. > I think there's no reason to provide the backward compatibility function at > all; the symbol was unused and unusable. Except that, before your patch, the 64-bit compiler was emitting addvsi3 (see comment #6 by Steven). So I think we need to provide the symbol. The question would then be: should we provide real SImode addition or word_mode addition as currently? Strict backwards compatibility would imply the latter. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18665
