This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'
- From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh dot kulkarni at linaro dot org>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:38:09 +0530
- Subject: Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAAgBjMmHp+voXYijmt--sVt7-VDey84EtkO0Zd13HVimeyz+TQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'.
On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-list _only_
if it's mixed with 'for' ?
We could define multiple operator-lists in simplify to be the same as
enclosing the simplify in 'for' with number of iterators
equal to number of operator-lists.
So we could allow
(define_operator_list op1 ...)
(define_operator_list op2 ...)
(simplify
(op1 (op2 ... )))
is equivalent to:
(for temp1 (op1)
temp2 (op2)
(simplify
(temp1 (temp2 ...))))
I think we have patterns like these in match-builtin.pd in the
match-and-simplify branch
And reject mixing of 'for' and operator-lists.
Admittedly the implicit 'for' behavior is not obvious from the syntax -;(
Thanks,
Prathamesh
> OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ?
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh