From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17944 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2014 20:13:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17932 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2014 20:13:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wi0-f174.google.com Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f174.google.com) (209.85.212.174) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:13:39 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q5so7451907wiv.13 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:13:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.195.13.161 with SMTP id ez1mr4191996wjd.126.1414440815992; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from android-4c5a376a18c0e957.fritz.box (p5B0E4479.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.14.68.121]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fa7sm16725653wjd.27.2014.10.27.13.13.35 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:13:35 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <544E9239.5040303@arm.com> References: <541AC4D2.9040901@arm.com> <541AD198.4060504@arm.com> <544E9239.5040303@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] Remove VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR and vec_shl_optab From: Richard Biener Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:24:00 -0000 To: Alan Lawrence CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Message-ID: <0D6B765F-05E2-418A-B3C0-ED741A253AE0@gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg02790.txt.bz2 On October 27, 2014 7:43:05 PM CET, Alan Lawrence wrote: >Ok, I've now pushed the previously-approved first half of this, and am >now >looking at replacing VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR with a VEC_PERM_EXPR. However: >does it seem >reasonable to push this patch 11 (removing VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR and >vec_shl_optab) >out-of-sequence? The patch applies almost-cleanly, there is just a >one-line >conflict with a change to a comment from the previous patch (which I'm >skipping)... Sure - please go ahead! Thanks, Richard. >Cheers, Alan > >Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Alan Lawrence > wrote: >>> The VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR tree code, and the corresponding vec_shl_optab, >seem to >>> have been added for completeness, providing a counterpart to >VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR >>> and vec_shr_optab. However, whereas VEC_RSHIFT_EXPRs are generated >(only) by >>> the vectorizer, VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR expressions are not generated at >all, so >>> there seems little point in maintaining it. >>> >>> Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. >>> aarch64.exp+vect.exp on aarch64-none-elf and aarch64_be-none-elf. >> >> Ah, there it is ;) >> >> Ok. >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> * expr.c (expand_expr_real_2): Remove code handling >VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR. >>> * fold-const.c (const_binop): Likewise. >>> * cfgexpand.c (expand_debug_expr): Likewise. >>> * tree-inline.c (estimate_operator_cost, dump_generic_node, >>> op_code_prio, op_symbol_code): Likewise. >>> * tree-vect-generic.c (expand_vector_operations_1): >Likewise. >>> * optabs.c (optab_for_tree_code): Likewise. >>> (expand_vec_shift_expr): Likewise, update comment. >>> * tree.def: Delete VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR, remove comment. >>> * optabs.h (expand_vec_shift_expr): Remove comment re. >>> VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR. >>> * optabs.def: Remove vec_shl_optab. >>> * doc/md.texi: Remove references to vec_shr_m. >>