This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] lno branch merge -- vectorizer patch #4
- From: Dorit Naishlos <DORIT at il dot ibm dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Ayal Zaks <ZAKS at il dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:43:39 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] lno branch merge -- vectorizer patch #4
> I'm happy to do that for you after your patch is approved/committed if
> you are tired of iterating this patch, and people think it's a good
> idea :)
Your idea sounds good to me.
The patch was just committed.
thanks!
dorit
Daniel Berlin
<dberlin@dberlin. To: Dorit Naishlos/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
org> cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Richard Henderson
<rth@redhat.com>, mark@codesourcery.com
22/09/2004 19:33 Subject: Re: [patch] lno branch merge -- vectorizer patch #4
On Sep 22, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Dorit Naishlos wrote:
> <vect_patch.Sept22>
Seeing all these new tree_codes for INDIRECT_REF, and adding two more
||'s everywhere made me wonder if we shouldn't just have an
INDIRECT_REF_P macro that is simply
#define INDIRECT_REF_P(x) (TREE_CODE (x) == INDIRECT_REF || TREE_CODE
(x) == MISALIGNED_INDIRECT_REF || TREE_CODE (x) == ALIGN_INDIRECT_REF)
and use that instead where possible.
I'm happy to do that for you after your patch is approved/committed if
you are tired of iterating this patch, and people think it's a good
idea :)