From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-389094-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 696 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 12:01:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 687 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 12:01:40 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:00:53 +0000
From: "marc.glisse at normalesup dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/51033] generic vector subscript and shuffle support was not added to C++
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:01:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51033-4-2EH8Gj86du@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51033-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51033-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg01376.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033

--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2012-04-17 11:59:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> If it is indeed a copy, you should move the code c-common.c and share it. The
> C-family FEs should share as much code as possible.

I agree on the principle. If more code was shared, C++ would already support
this feature ;-)

On the other hand, here I am copying a small block of code in the middle of a
function. Making just that paragraph common wouldn't make much sense imho.
Factoring most of (cp_)build_array_ref might make sense, but requires someone
with a better understanding of the FEs, because there are slight differences
that may or may not be relevant.