C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type

David Blaikie via cfe-dev
Hi, all.

I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector kind type. For example, a legal clang code as following. But it's ill-formed in GCC.
typedef int v4 __attribute((vector_size(16)));

int main(){
  v4 va;
  v4 vb;
  vector int a;
  vector int b;

  int c = a<=b;
  v4 vc = va<=vb;
}

g++ a.C
a.C: In function 'int main()':
a.C:9:14: error: cannot convert '__vector(4) int' to 'int' in initialization
   int c = a<=b;
 
The return type of '<=' operator of Altivec kind vector is not same as generic gcc kind vector. One is int, the other one is vector. But in GCC, it's same return type and meaning, which is described at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html

So my question is what it is we would like relational and equality operators to do with vectors? We make the meaning of two kind vectors consistent or separate? Or which document is standard rule to implement the semantic meaning?
 
 
Regards,
 

Zixuan Wu (Zeson)

XL C/C++ Compiler Developer
IBM Systems, z System
E-mail: [hidden email]
Tel: 86-21-60928420
 
Compiler : The Art of Lowering
 


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type

David Blaikie via cfe-dev

Hi Hubert:

Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be the opposite of your understanding.

"The ABI (as cited by Hubert) clearly means that all of the operators described there are to operate independently on each lane. Vector binary addition is not "sum across", so why should vector <= mean vec_all_le (or vec_any_le, for that matter)? The result of <= should be a vector of booleans."



Best,

Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD.

XL C/C++, XL Fortran Compiler Development
E-mail: [hidden email]


Inactive hide details for Hubert Tong---10/18/2018 10:03:40 AM---The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power ArchitectHubert Tong---10/18/2018 10:03:40 AM---The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power Architecture 64-bit ELF V2 ABI documents the fo

From: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM
To: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN
Cc: [hidden email], Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 10/18/2018 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type




The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power Architecture 64-bit ELF V2 ABI documents the following under Section 6.2. "Vector Operators":

The traditional C/C++ operators are defined on vector types with “do all” semantics for unary and binary +, unary and binary �C, binary *, binary %, and binary / as well as the unary and binary shift, logical and comparison operators, and the ternary ?: operator.

So the answer is the the two kinds of vectors have separate semantics and Clang is right.

-- HT


Inactive hide details for Zi Xuan CW Wu---18-10-2018 02:18:23 a.m.---Hi, all.  I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<Zi Xuan CW Wu---18-10-2018 02:18:23 a.m.---Hi, all. I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector k

From: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 18-10-2018 02:18 a.m.
Subject: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type




Hi, all.

I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector kind type. For example, a legal clang code as following. But it's ill-formed in GCC.
      typedef int v4 __attribute((vector_size(16)));

      int main(){
      v4 va;
      v4 vb;
      vector int a;
      vector int b;

      int c = a<=b;
      v4 vc = va<=vb;

      }

      g++ a.C
      a.C: In function 'int main()':
      a.C:9:14: error: cannot convert '__vector(4) int' to 'int' in initialization
      int c = a<=b;

The return type of '<=' operator of Altivec kind vector is not same as generic gcc kind vector. One is int, the other one is vector. But in GCC, it's same return type and meaning, which is described at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html

So my question is what it is we would like relational and equality operators to do with vectors? We make the meaning of two kind vectors consistent or separate? Or which document is standard rule to implement the semantic meaning?

Regards,


Zixuan Wu (Zeson)


XL C/C++ Compiler Developer
IBM Systems, z System
E-mail: [hidden email]
Tel: 86-21-60928420


Compiler : The Art of Lowering





_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type

David Blaikie via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Blaikie via cfe-dev

Hi Hubert,

Yeah, that is some very badly written text. We'll have to try to rewrite that for clarity.

Thanks!

-- Bill

Bill Schmidt, Ph.D.
STSM, Toolchain Architect for Linux on POWER
IBM Linux Technology Center
[hidden email] (507) 319-6873


Inactive hide details for Hubert Tong---10/18/2018 03:51:42 PM---Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose term of "do allHubert Tong---10/18/2018 03:51:42 PM---Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose term of "do all" and the intrinsic of vec_all_le bein

From: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM
To: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN, [hidden email], Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 10/18/2018 03:51 PM
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type




Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose term of "do all" and the intrinsic of vec_all_le being named with "all".
The ABI does clearly say:
The result of binary operators is the same type as the type of the input operands.

-- HT


Inactive hide details for Jinsong Ji---18-10-2018 03:53:36 p.m.---Hi Hubert: Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be theJinsong Ji---18-10-2018 03:53:36 p.m.---Hi Hubert: Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be the opposite of your understanding.

From: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM
To: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN, [hidden email], Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 18-10-2018 03:53 p.m.
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type



Hi Hubert:

Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be the opposite of your understanding.

"The ABI (as cited by Hubert) clearly means that all of the operators described there are to operate independently on each lane. Vector binary addition is not "sum across", so why should vector <= mean vec_all_le (or vec_any_le, for that matter)? The result of <= should be a vector of booleans."



Best,

Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD.

XL C/C++, XL Fortran Compiler Development
E-mail: [hidden email]



Inactive hide details for Hubert Tong---10/18/2018 10:03:40 AM---The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power ArchitectHubert Tong---10/18/2018 10:03:40 AM---The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power Architecture 64-bit ELF V2 ABI documents the fo

From: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM
To: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN
Cc: [hidden email], Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 10/18/2018 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type



The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power Architecture 64-bit ELF V2 ABI documents the following under Section 6.2. "Vector Operators":

The traditional C/C++ operators are defined on vector types with “do all” semantics for unary and binary +, unary and binary �C, binary *, binary %, and binary / as well as the unary and binary shift, logical and comparison operators, and the ternary ?: operator.

So the answer is the the two kinds of vectors have separate semantics and Clang is right.

-- HT


Inactive hide details for Zi Xuan CW Wu---18-10-2018 02:18:23 a.m.---Hi, all.  I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<Zi Xuan CW Wu---18-10-2018 02:18:23 a.m.---Hi, all. I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector k

From: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 18-10-2018 02:18 a.m.
Subject: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type




Hi, all.

I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector kind type. For example, a legal clang code as following. But it's ill-formed in GCC.
      typedef int v4 __attribute((vector_size(16)));

      int main(){
      v4 va;
      v4 vb;
      vector int a;
      vector int b;

      int c = a<=b;
      v4 vc = va<=vb;

      }

      g++ a.C
      a.C: In function 'int main()':
      a.C:9:14: error: cannot convert '__vector(4) int' to 'int' in initialization
      int c = a<=b;

The return type of '<=' operator of Altivec kind vector is not same as generic gcc kind vector. One is int, the other one is vector. But in GCC, it's same return type and meaning, which is described at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html

So my question is what it is we would like relational and equality operators to do with vectors? We make the meaning of two kind vectors consistent or separate? Or which document is standard rule to implement the semantic meaning?

Regards,


Zixuan Wu (Zeson)


XL C/C++ Compiler Developer
IBM Systems, z System
E-mail: [hidden email]
Tel: 86-21-60928420


Compiler : The Art of Lowering







_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type

David Blaikie via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Blaikie via cfe-dev
I find the related code developed by Anton Yartsev as following git commit. FYI, I reported a bug related to this issue before, https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31161
 
commit 6bd14099c18d34a7dc894ab25654d0b253a3d527
Author: Anton Yartsev <[hidden email]>
Date:   Thu Nov 18 03:19:30 2010 +0000
    comparison of AltiVec vectors now gives bool result (fix for 7533)
 
 
Hi, Anton, it sees that we should return vector type instead of bool result for vector comparison.
Could you please have a look at this mail thread? And I also see that this commit is fix for 7533. But I can not find the issue, could you please give some info about the `7533` issue?
Thank you very much.


 
Regards,
 

Zixuan Wu (Zeson)

XL C/C++ Compiler Developer
IBM Systems, z System
E-mail: [hidden email]
Tel: 86-21-60928420
 
Compiler : The Art of Lowering
 
 
 
----- Original message -----
From: Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM
To: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN, [hidden email], Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type
Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2018 5:09 AM
 
Hi Hubert,

Yeah, that is some very badly written text.  We'll have to try to rewrite that for clarity.

Thanks!

-- Bill

Bill Schmidt, Ph.D.
STSM, Toolchain Architect for Linux on POWER
IBM Linux Technology Center
[hidden email]   (507) 319-6873



Inactive hide details for Hubert Tong---10/18/2018 03:51:42 PM---Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose term of "do allHubert Tong---10/18/2018 03:51:42 PM---Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose term of "do all" and the intrinsic of vec_all_le bein

From: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM
To: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN, [hidden email], Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 10/18/2018 03:51 PM
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type


Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose term of "do all" and the intrinsic of vec_all_le being named with "all".
The ABI does clearly say:
The result of binary operators is the same type as the type of the input operands.

-- HT


Inactive hide details for Jinsong Ji---18-10-2018 03:53:36 p.m.---Hi Hubert: Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be theJinsong Ji---18-10-2018 03:53:36 p.m.---Hi Hubert: Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be the opposite of your understanding.

From: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM
To: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN, [hidden email], Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 18-10-2018 03:53 p.m.
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type


Hi Hubert:

Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be the opposite of your understanding.

"The ABI (as cited by Hubert) clearly means that all of the operators described there are to operate independently on each lane.  Vector binary addition is not "sum across", so why should vector <= mean vec_all_le (or vec_any_le, for that matter)?  The result of <= should be a vector of booleans."



Best,

Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD.

XL C/C++, XL Fortran Compiler Development
E-mail: [hidden email]



Inactive hide details for Hubert Tong---10/18/2018 10:03:40 AM---The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power ArchitectHubert Tong---10/18/2018 10:03:40 AM---The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power Architecture 64-bit ELF V2 ABI documents the fo

From: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM
To: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN
Cc: [hidden email], Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 10/18/2018 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type


The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power Architecture 64-bit ELF V2 ABI documents the following under Section 6.2. "Vector Operators":

The traditional C/C++ operators are defined on vector types with “do all” semantics for unary and binary +, unary and binary –, binary *, binary %, and binary / as well as the unary and binary shift, logical and comparison operators, and the ternary ?: operator.

So the answer is the the two kinds of vectors have separate semantics and Clang is right.

-- HT


Zi Xuan CW Wu---18-10-2018 02:18:23 a.m.---Hi, all.  I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector k

From: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 18-10-2018 02:18 a.m.
Subject: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type



Hi, all.

I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector kind type. For example, a legal clang code as following. But it's ill-formed in GCC.
  • typedef int v4 __attribute((vector_size(16)));

    int main(){
     v4 va;
     v4 vb;
     vector int a;
     vector int b;

     
    int c = a<=b;
      v4 vc = va<=vb;

    }

    g++ a.C
    a.C: In function 'int main()':
    a.C:9:14: error: cannot convert '__vector(4) int' to 'int' in initialization
      int c = a<=b;
 
The return type of '<=' operator of Altivec kind vector is not same as generic gcc kind vector. One is int, the other one is vector. But in GCC, it's same return type and meaning, which is described at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html

So my question is what it is we would like relational and equality operators to do with vectors? We make the meaning of two kind vectors consistent or separate? Or which document is standard rule to implement the semantic meaning?
  •  
 
Regards,
 

Zixuan Wu (Zeson)

XL C/C++ Compiler Developer
IBM Systems, z System
E-mail: [hidden email]
Tel: 86-21-60928420

 
Compiler : The Art of Lowering
 


 
 


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type

David Blaikie via cfe-dev
Hi Zixuan,

There is an error in the issue number, the real issue number is 7553 (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7553).

I find the related code developed by Anton Yartsev as following git commit. FYI, I reported a bug related to this issue before, https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31161
 
commit 6bd14099c18d34a7dc894ab25654d0b253a3d527
Author: Anton Yartsev [hidden email]
Date:   Thu Nov 18 03:19:30 2010 +0000
    comparison of AltiVec vectors now gives bool result (fix for 7533)
 
 
Hi, Anton, it sees that we should return vector type instead of bool result for vector comparison.
Could you please have a look at this mail thread? And I also see that this commit is fix for 7533. But I can not find the issue, could you please give some info about the `7533` issue?
Thank you very much.


 
Regards,
 

Zixuan Wu (Zeson)

XL C/C++ Compiler Developer
IBM Systems, z System
E-mail: [hidden email]
Tel: 86-21-60928420
 
Compiler : The Art of Lowering
 
 
 
----- Original message -----
From: Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM
To: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN, [hidden email], Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type
Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2018 5:09 AM
 
Hi Hubert,

Yeah, that is some very badly written text.  We'll have to try to rewrite that for clarity.

Thanks!

-- Bill

Bill Schmidt, Ph.D.
STSM, Toolchain Architect for Linux on POWER
IBM Linux Technology Center
[hidden email]   (507) 319-6873



Inactive hide details for Hubert Tong---10/18/2018
            03:51:42 PM---Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose
            term of "do allHubert Tong---10/18/2018 03:51:42 PM---Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose term of "do all" and the intrinsic of vec_all_le bein

From: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM
To: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN, [hidden email], Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 10/18/2018 03:51 PM
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type


Sorry, yes. I got confused over the very loose term of "do all" and the intrinsic of vec_all_le being named with "all".
The ABI does clearly say:
The result of binary operators is the same type as the type of the input operands.

-- HT


Inactive hide details for Jinsong Ji---18-10-2018
            03:53:36 p.m.---Hi Hubert: Looks like the interpretation of
            ABI should be theJinsong Ji---18-10-2018 03:53:36 p.m.---Hi Hubert: Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be the opposite of your understanding.

From: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM
To: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN, [hidden email], Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 18-10-2018 03:53 p.m.
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type


Hi Hubert:

Looks like the interpretation of ABI should be the opposite of your understanding.

"The ABI (as cited by Hubert) clearly means that all of the operators described there are to operate independently on each lane.  Vector binary addition is not "sum across", so why should vector <= mean vec_all_le (or vec_any_le, for that matter)?  The result of <= should be a vector of booleans."



Best,

Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD.

XL C/C++, XL Fortran Compiler Development
E-mail: [hidden email]



Inactive hide details for Hubert Tong---10/18/2018
            10:03:40 AM---The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the
            Power ArchitectHubert Tong---10/18/2018 10:03:40 AM---The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power Architecture 64-bit ELF V2 ABI documents the fo

From: Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM
To: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM@IBMCN
Cc: [hidden email], Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 10/18/2018 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type


The OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement for the Power Architecture 64-bit ELF V2 ABI documents the following under Section 6.2. "Vector Operators":

The traditional C/C++ operators are defined on vector types with “do all” semantics for unary and binary +, unary and binary –, binary *, binary %, and binary / as well as the unary and binary shift, logical and comparison operators, and the ternary ?: operator.

So the answer is the the two kinds of vectors have separate semantics and Clang is right.

-- HT


Inactive hide details for Zi Xuan CW Wu---18-10-2018
            02:18:23 a.m.---Hi, all. I find the meaning of C/C++
            language operator '<Zi Xuan CW Wu---18-10-2018 02:18:23 a.m.---Hi, all.  I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector k

From: Zi Xuan CW Wu/China/IBM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: Jinsong Ji/Jacksonville/IBM@IBMUS, Nemanja Ivanovic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Hubert Tong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 18-10-2018 02:18 a.m.
Subject: C/C++ operator meaning is different between gcc generic vector type and altivec type



Hi, all.

I find the meaning of C/C++ language operator '<=' is different between different vector kind type. For example, a legal clang code as following. But it's ill-formed in GCC.
  • typedef int v4 __attribute((vector_size(16)));

    int main(){
     v4 va;
     v4 vb;
     vector int a;
     vector int b;

     
    int c = a<=b;
      v4 vc = va<=vb;

    }

    g++ a.C
    a.C: In function 'int main()':
    a.C:9:14: error: cannot convert '__vector(4) int' to 'int' in initialization
      int c = a<=b;
 
The return type of '<=' operator of Altivec kind vector is not same as generic gcc kind vector. One is int, the other one is vector. But in GCC, it's same return type and meaning, which is described at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html

So my question is what it is we would like relational and equality operators to do with vectors? We make the meaning of two kind vectors consistent or separate? Or which document is standard rule to implement the semantic meaning?
  •  
 
Regards,
 

Zixuan Wu (Zeson)

XL C/C++ Compiler Developer
IBM Systems, z System
E-mail: [hidden email]
Tel: 86-21-60928420

 
Compiler : The Art of Lowering
 


 
 


-- 
Anton

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev