From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-389839-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23513 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2012 11:59:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 23494 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2012 11:59:07 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 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, 24 Apr 2012 11:58:42 +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, 24 Apr 2012 11:59:00 -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-51033-4-6QvhuagBM6@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/msg02121.txt.bz2

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

--- Comment #23 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2012-04-24 11:57:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> What does it mean "exercise the backend a lot"? Do you mean it takes a lot of
> time?

I think so.

> I haven't looked at the tests, but I think it is not a problem to run
> compile-only tests with both gcc and g++. 

compile-time tests are not always sufficient.

The __builtin_shuffle tests are spread in:
gcc.dg{,/torture}
gcc.target/{i386,powerpc}
gcc.c-torture/{compile,execute}

I assume the tests in gcc.dg can move to c-c++-common. The target tests should
stay in target. Not sure about gcc.c-torture.

But one interesting thing to test is if the front-end passes the arguments as
constants and thus the backend can use specialized code instead of the slow
generic one. And this kind of test seems necessarily target-specific. Bah, I
guess I shouldn't ask for too much and moving the gcc.dg tests would be enough.