This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Implicit conversion to a generic vector type
- From: martin krastev <blu dot dark at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:51:44 +0300
- Subject: Re: Implicit conversion to a generic vector type
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKPuMhMTMsSt=xNWrZS+FdByC5p0pAo=0B51_zTQ0_JrHq0nGQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 20 dot 1605260801200 dot 2019 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <CAKPuMhNsDLjDFM=7bPRssvkG=DHg39QXyE7BK7ZOywyHE7krkw at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 20 dot 1605261001380 dot 2019 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
A new arithmeticish type would take more effort, I understand. Marc,
are there plans to incorporate your patch, perhaps in an extended
form, in a release any time soon? My apologies if I'm addressing these
questions to the wrong person.
On 26 May 2016 at 11:11, Marc Glisse <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2016, martin krastev wrote:
>> Thank you for the reply. So it's a known g++ issue with a candidate
>> patch. Looking at the patch, I was wondering, what precludes the
>> generic vector types form being proper arithmetic types?
> In some cases vectors act like arithmetic types (operator+, etc), and in
> others they don't (conversions in general). We have scalarish_type_p for
> things that are scalars or vectors, we could add arithmeticish_type_p ;-)
> (I think the name arithmetic comes directly from the standard, so we don't
> want to change its meaning)
> Marc Glisse