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: More forwprop for vectors


On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/13 13:43, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> just adapting yet another function so it also works with vectors.
>>>
>>> It seemed convenient to add a new macro. The name sucks (it doesn't
>>> match the semantics of INTEGRAL_TYPE_P), but I didn't want to name it
>>> INTEGER_SCALAR_OR_VECTOR_CONSTANT_P and didn't have any good idea for a
>>> short name.
>>
>> I'd just use a long name.  I can easily see someone getting easily not
>> being aware that INTEGRAL_CST_P returns true for vectors and as a result
>> doing something inappropriate.
>>
>> INTEGER_CST_OR_VECTOR_INTEGER_TYPE_P?
>
>
> Having TYPE in there seems confusing, and
> INTEGER_SCALAR_OR_VECTOR_CONSTANT_P is at least one character shorter ;-)
> Oh, you probably meant INTEGER_CST_OR_VECTOR_INTEGER_CST_P?
>
> Compacting could give INT_OR_VECINT_CST_P (or INTVEC instead of VECINT, I
> don't know which order sounds best).
>
> I don't really mind the name, so if you want
> INTEGER_CST_OR_VECTOR_INTEGER_CST_P that's ok with me.

How about just adding VECTOR_INTEGER_CST_P and using
TREE_CODE (x) == INTEGER_CST || VECTOR_INTEGER_CST_P (x)
in the code?

I suppose it's explicitely not allowing complex integer constants?

Richard.

> Thanks for the comments on the 2 patches,
>
> --
> Marc Glisse


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