From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13802 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2013 21:34:40 -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 13791 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2013 21:34:40 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (HELO mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr) (192.134.164.104) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:34:39 +0000 Received: from ip-95.net-81-220-130.standre.rev.numericable.fr (HELO laptop-mg.local) ([81.220.130.95]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Jun 2013 23:34:36 +0200 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:58:00 -0000 From: Marc Glisse To: Jakub Jelinek cc: Jason Merrill , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [C++] Fix __builtin_shuffle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <51CB558B.6090905@redhat.com> <51CC2F9D.908@redhat.com> <20130627153313.GE2336@tucnak.redhat.com> <20130627160057.GF2336@tucnak.redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg01565.txt.bz2 On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:54:10PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> I don't really see why, as I am still calling c_build_vec_perm_expr >>> in the same cases, just possibly not exactly with the same arguments >>> (they don't go through build_non_dependent_expr, but Jason seemed to >>> imply that it did not matter since we don't look too deep through >>> the arguments). >> >> I guess you're right. If the c_* routine doesn't mind C++ specific trees >> and just cares about their types and pt.c then instantiates it, then it is >> fine. > > Even if both are fine, if you prefer the long version (safer, or more uniform > with the rest), please say so, I don't mind. I committed the short version, since that's the one I currently had in my tree (and I had tested it). We can always change it later. Thanks to you both for the comments, -- Marc Glisse