From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2405 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2012 11:23:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 2396 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2012 11:23:16 -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; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:23:03 +0000 From: "ramana at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/51033] generic vector subscript and shuffle support was not added to C++ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:23:00 -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: ramana at gcc dot gnu.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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00894.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033 --- Comment #26 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-06-14 11:22:26 UTC --- (In reply to comment #23) > (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. Patch posted for comments here : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00903.html