From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-406243-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 118342 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2015 10:15:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 118328 invoked by uid 89); 28 Aug 2015 10:15:36 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,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-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:15:35 +0000
Received: by wieo17 with SMTP id o17so10294669wie.0        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 03:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.23.132 with SMTP id m4mr3413712wif.89.1440756932683; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 03:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.30.131 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 03:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEwic4YzWr6td0oEbymbW065EWLuMdvGz8xP7_eVt8qfGS1MwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <557A5214.7060106@redhat.com>	<CAEwic4ZQomb_en7o4=n40j8cHU6-TXmhoSOZZOshiw1Pkgi0Bg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEwic4YufFNkdjaXxW0e1ExaGJk0xWwT8FJfiekJWa_mzVsxOQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B911DD.30105@redhat.com>	<CAEwic4Z-MgOwdyY_GTP+hGrK6qHgRoys8d4Tj_kHMri7oGuqHQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55BA5667.9040200@redhat.com>	<CAEwic4apQgQzSWU6Rbyn-OnBqTu_ADrCm-2Fsc2iPsm_NhUr_g@mail.gmail.com>	<55BAACF9.7040707@redhat.com>	<597173047.4338388.1438379666336.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>	<55BEE4CE.9070706@redhat.com>	<CAEwic4aQeu6c88q+RfZ=mGu6tObjzq9tWR4YgRnxCjk2PG=cXQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55BF8B2B.9040001@redhat.com>	<CAEwic4aN=BVPQkg03u257v=wRc1j5G4e91ahf0g4BBfhUUyhMg@mail.gmail.com>	<55DE7C55.6030207@redhat.com>	<CAEwic4ZoKOnXi2oMoJXFsr-e+duL0KtwJ22WBTN7DGcwX3A8qg@mail.gmail.com>	<55DF1042.9020603@redhat.com>	<CAEwic4Z5X0BTV1-S3M77uree3+E8KgLLwESaTjZT-j8E5FmTyA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEwic4YJkbKPTs5t4fE08xZQ3QuUi_eqA_b+3N_46p8S9v3Ddg@mail.gmail.com>	<55DFC368.3050108@redhat.com>	<CAEwic4YzWr6td0oEbymbW065EWLuMdvGz8xP7_eVt8qfGS1MwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:18:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAEwic4Zah-UOjodvQCyDKkRPy6W8rjn8ey3tvqCe5SXwgwmqCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: C++ delayed folding branch review
From: Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: Kai Tietz <ktietz@redhat.com>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg01780.txt.bz2

2015-08-28 9:19 GMT+02:00 Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com>:
> 2015-08-28 4:11 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>:
>> On 08/27/2015 02:12 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>>
>>> +  else if (TREE_CODE (type) == VECTOR_TYPE)
>>> +    {
>>> +      if (TREE_CODE (arg1) == VECTOR_CST
>>> +         && code == NOP_EXPR
>>> +         && TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (type) == VECTOR_CST_NELTS (arg1))
>>> +       {
>>> +         tree r = copy_node (arg1);
>>> +         TREE_TYPE (arg1) = type;
>>> +         return r;
>>> +       }
>>> +    }
>>
>>
>> I would drop the check on 'code' and add a check that
>>
>>  TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (arg1))
>>
>> Does that still pass?
>
> Yes, is still passes.  To check here for main-variant seems to be more
> robust.  I commit it to branch, and will do complete
> regression-testing for it.

Completed regression-testing.  No new regressions.

Kai