From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19905 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2014 18:43:15 -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 19870 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2014 18:43:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: service87.mimecast.com Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:43:11 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:43:08 +0000 Received: from [10.1.209.51] ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:43:06 +0000 Message-ID: <544E9239.5040303@arm.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:45:00 -0000 From: Alan Lawrence User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Biener CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] Remove VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR and vec_shl_optab References: <541AC4D2.9040901@arm.com> <541AD198.4060504@arm.com> In-Reply-To: X-MC-Unique: 114102718430801501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg02782.txt.bz2 Ok, I've now pushed the previously-approved first half of this, and am now= =20 looking at replacing VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR with a VEC_PERM_EXPR. However: does it= seem=20 reasonable to push this patch 11 (removing VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR and vec_shl_opta= b)=20 out-of-sequence? The patch applies almost-cleanly, there is just a one-line= =20 conflict with a change to a comment from the previous patch (which I'm skip= ping)... Cheers, Alan Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Alan Lawrence wr= ote: >> 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. >=20 > Ah, there it is ;) >=20 > Ok. >=20 > Thanks, > Richard. >=20 >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * expr.c (expand_expr_real_2): Remove code handling VEC_LSHIFT_E= XPR. >> * 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. >=20