This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ delayed folding branch review
- From: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Kai Tietz <ktietz at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:19:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++ delayed folding branch review
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <557A5214 dot 7060106 at redhat dot com> <CAEwic4ZQomb_en7o4=n40j8cHU6-TXmhoSOZZOshiw1Pkgi0Bg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAEwic4YufFNkdjaXxW0e1ExaGJk0xWwT8FJfiekJWa_mzVsxOQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <55B911DD dot 30105 at redhat dot com> <CAEwic4Z-MgOwdyY_GTP+hGrK6qHgRoys8d4Tj_kHMri7oGuqHQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <55BA5667 dot 9040200 at redhat dot com> <CAEwic4apQgQzSWU6Rbyn-OnBqTu_ADrCm-2Fsc2iPsm_NhUr_g at mail dot gmail dot com> <55BAACF9 dot 7040707 at redhat dot com> <597173047 dot 4338388 dot 1438379666336 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <55BEE4CE dot 9070706 at redhat dot com> <CAEwic4aQeu6c88q+RfZ=mGu6tObjzq9tWR4YgRnxCjk2PG=cXQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <55BF8B2B dot 9040001 at redhat dot com> <CAEwic4aN=BVPQkg03u257v=wRc1j5G4e91ahf0g4BBfhUUyhMg at mail dot gmail dot com> <55DE7C55 dot 6030207 at redhat dot com> <CAEwic4ZoKOnXi2oMoJXFsr-e+duL0KtwJ22WBTN7DGcwX3A8qg at mail dot gmail dot com> <55DF1042 dot 9020603 at redhat dot com> <CAEwic4Z5X0BTV1-S3M77uree3+E8KgLLwESaTjZT-j8E5FmTyA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAEwic4YJkbKPTs5t4fE08xZQ3QuUi_eqA_b+3N_46p8S9v3Ddg at mail dot gmail dot com> <55DFC368 dot 3050108 at redhat dot com>
2015-08-28 4:11 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>:
> On 08/27/2015 02:12 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> + else if (TREE_CODE (type) == VECTOR_TYPE)
>> + {
>> + if (TREE_CODE (arg1) == VECTOR_CST
>> + && code == NOP_EXPR
>> + && TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (type) == VECTOR_CST_NELTS (arg1))
>> + {
>> + tree r = copy_node (arg1);
>> + TREE_TYPE (arg1) = type;
>> + return r;
>> + }
>> + }
>
>
> I would drop the check on 'code' and add a check that
>
> TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (arg1))
>
> Does that still pass?
Yes, is still passes. To check here for main-variant seems to be more
robust. I commit it to branch, and will do complete
regression-testing for it.
> Jason
Kai