From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=pYHA=7J=suse.de=rguenther@sourceware.org>
Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA7C03858410
	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 11:52:46 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org AA7C03858410
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134])
	by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547BE1FDDC;
	Fri, 17 Mar 2023 11:52:45 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa;
	t=1679053965; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:
	 mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=ULNCvv6kY5+Q5w8ykAOjdmFxfMuYm/j/AQ+UlCirLFY=;
	b=ddbwgAZEHKLzcB39dh1dB2ePbHVAXDAcjUxS9gRS7fKYaxFwie3U6XqwO0k5JIpzK3C5Ak
	uGunXh9KKHk6mELK3Hgsa1SllTyE4SeVnM1AGziS0yVypv1Xzn7eBXlpV7bfUK47x/hOLZ
	gOvd3uHMhhlQSiR1v+myhELtg6mx7Cs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de;
	s=susede2_ed25519; t=1679053965;
	h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:
	 mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=ULNCvv6kY5+Q5w8ykAOjdmFxfMuYm/j/AQ+UlCirLFY=;
	b=nCrdHx45VHooWep/m1g+H6fgtvZcj2eGy2Xkzio7wW3Jpz5SuDM1XkVFZGZD9VZT0bGz2B
	FwsenucxKa7JamBQ==
Received: from wotan.suse.de (wotan.suse.de [10.160.0.1])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F8642C141;
	Fri, 17 Mar 2023 11:52:45 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 11:52:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: "Andre Vieira (lists)" <andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com>
cc: Richard Sandiford <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>, 
    "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [ping][vect-patterns] Refactor widen_plus/widen_minus as
 internal_fns
In-Reply-To: <51ce8969-3130-452e-092e-f9d91eff2dad@arm.com>
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2303171151340.18795@jbgna.fhfr.qr>
References: <DB9PR08MB660348E126B0DBFBBC11325EF5D69@DB9PR08MB6603.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2205271323240.32424@jbgna.fhfr.qr> <DB9PR08MB660367C6399C30B397EFC9BDF5DC9@DB9PR08MB6603.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2206010952470.32424@jbgna.fhfr.qr> <DB9PR08MB6603F9C50FFDAF4B972EC317F5A29@DB9PR08MB6603.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <mpt5ylckhtf.fsf@arm.com> <AM8PR08MB6596506A7B7EE54B128D35A3F5A59@AM8PR08MB6596.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <sp30q1n6-orn4-p4ss-q36s-734854o1ss4@fhfr.qr> <DB9PR08MB6603D656FD05B9D562033809F5BA9@DB9PR08MB6603.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2207121045100.14950@jbgna.fhfr.qr> <51ce8969-3130-452e-092e-f9d91eff2dad@arm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (LSU 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> I'm only picking this up now. Just going through your earlier comments and
> stuff and I noticed we didn't address the situation with the gimple::build. Do
> you want me to add overloaded static member functions to cover all
> gimple_build_* functions, or just create one to replace vect_gimple_build and
> we create them as needed? It's more work but I think adding them all would be
> better. I'd even argue that it would be nice to replace the old ones with the
> new ones, but I can imagine you might not want that as it makes backporting
> and the likes a bit annoying...
> 
> Let me know what you prefer, I'll go work on your latest comments too.

I think the series was resolved and I approved it.  As for
vect_gimple_build the better way forward would be to use
gimple_build () as existing but add a vect_finish_stmt_* handling
a gimple_seq.

Richard.