[match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

[Prathamesh Kulkarni]

On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'.
On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-list _only_
if it's mixed with 'for' ?
We could define multiple operator-lists in simplify to be the same as
enclosing the simplify in 'for' with number of iterators
equal to number of operator-lists.
So we could allow
(define_operator_list op1 ...)
(define_operator_list op2 ...)

(simplify
  (op1 (op2 ... )))

is equivalent to:
(for  temp1 (op1)
       temp2 (op2)
  (simplify
    (temp1 (temp2 ...))))

I think we have patterns like these in match-builtin.pd in the
match-and-simplify branch
And reject mixing of 'for' and operator-lists.
Admittedly the implicit 'for' behavior is not obvious from the syntax -;(

Thanks,
Prathamesh
> OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ?
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh