This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [C++11][4.9] Add missing REDUC_PLUS_EXPR case to potential_constant_expression_1.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:47:25 -0500
Subject: Re: [C++11][4.9] Add missing REDUC_PLUS_EXPR case to potential_constant_expression_1.
References: <1363268930-22910-1-git-send-email-james.greenhalgh@arm.com> <51421C32.2060204@redhat.com> <20130314185528.GH12913@tucnak.redhat.com>

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:51:30PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 03/14/2013 09:48 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>> >Is this OK to commit to 4.9 when stage 1 opens up?
>>
>> Yes, but please add the other new tree codes as well.
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to fold the target builtins only later on
> (e.g. guard the folding with cfun && gimple_in_ssa_p (cfun) (or if we have
> any predicate that is set starting with gimplification or so)).
> Having all the FEs have to deal with myriads of weird tree codes etc. isn't
> IMHO desirable.

Agreed.

-- Gaby

References:
- [C++11][4.9] Add missing REDUC_PLUS_EXPR case to potential_constant_expression_1.
  - From: James Greenhalgh
- Re: [C++11][4.9] Add missing REDUC_PLUS_EXPR case to potential_constant_expression_1.
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++11][4.9] Add missing REDUC_PLUS_EXPR case to potential_constant_expression_1.
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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