This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Gimple vs ternary operations?

From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jim Wilson <wilson at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:43:03 +0200
Subject: Re: Gimple vs ternary operations?
References: <4C1F8454.3030007@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTinzYV2ZORVp_b5XOi-fGMywh-0c1ufgPHtrz3bH@mail.gmail.com> <20100622093940.GN26878@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>

On 06/22/2010 11:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:34:30AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:

>> We should add support for a GIMPLE_TERNARY_RHS class.
> 
> It hasn't been added before because ternary ops were considered rare
> (primarily just COND_EXPR).  If they are no longer so rare that it is worth
> adding handling of GIMPLE_TERNARY_RHS on all spots that need adjusting
> because of it, let's change it.

Thanks guys.  Patch coming.


Bernd

References:
- Gimple vs ternary operations?
  - From: Bernd Schmidt
- Re: Gimple vs ternary operations?
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: Gimple vs ternary operations?
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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