This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Vector subscription patch

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Artem Shinkarov <artyom dot shinkaroff at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:13:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Vector subscription patch
References: <AANLkTinBCvNWt3ymLHvGWVCJ-cPL84wX++bTy+EBVj5M@mail.gmail.com> <4CBF3BAD.6080305@redhat.com> <AANLkTimb0T=kpNtCq+87kPftj8K-LWnU8+jDyE2GqnE8@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/20/2010 01:55 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> These patterns are used by store_bit_field and extract_bit_field,
>> generally in response to BIT_FIELD_REF.  This is probably a better
>> way to represent the operation.
> 
> But that's only possible for constant indices, but yes I remember having
> similar comments initially.

Then we should invent a VEC_ELT_REF or something.  In most
cases I expect we'll be able to reduce the argument to a
constant.  If not... well, too bad, we'll dump it to memory.

But doing it right away in the front-end has got to be the
least efficient idea.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Vector subscription patch
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- Vector subscription patch
  - From: Artem Shinkarov
- Re: Vector subscription patch
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Vector subscription patch
  - From: Richard Guenther

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]