From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23638 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2013 12:27:13 -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 23622 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2013 12:27:12 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:27:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5RCRARY031465 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:27:11 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.42] (ovpn-113-42.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.42]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5RCR9Za023487; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:27:10 -0400 Message-ID: <51CC2F9D.908@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:27:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Glisse CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [C++] Fix __builtin_shuffle References: <51CB558B.6090905@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg01515.txt.bz2 On 06/27/2013 07:59 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > I assume I can't call directly c_build_vec_perm_expr on the original > arguments without build_non_dependent_expr? It looks like c_build_vec_perm_expr is safe to take the original arguments, since it doesn't look deep into the expression. So either way is fine. > By the way, should I rename cp_build_vec_perm_expr as build_x_vec_perm_expr, since most of its code is copied from build_x_binary_op and not cp_build_binary_op? Makes sense. OK with that change. Jason