From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3098 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2004 03:34:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3085 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2004 03:34:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Sep 2004 03:34:24 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8L3YOBX032593; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:34:24 -0400 Received: from [172.16.50.2] (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8L3YNr13744; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:34:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Difference between {expand,fold,simplify}_builtin_foo ??? From: Jeffrey A Law Reply-To: law@redhat.com To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <200409201845.i8KIjdTK020464@caip.rutgers.edu> References: <200409201741.i8KHfi9u009853@caip.rutgers.edu> <1095702500.10950.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200409201845.i8KIjdTK020464@caip.rutgers.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat, Inc Message-Id: <1095737658.10950.326.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:53:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01210.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 12:45, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > The key difference between them is the simplify_ variant is not > > allowed to generate RTL nor create non-gimple code. > > jeff > > Ok thanks, that explains expand_builtin_* vs. simplify_builtin_*. > > However what about fold_builtin_*? Both fold_builin_* and > simplify_builtin_* return trees. Are the fold_ variants allowed to > produce non-gimple? Or are fold_builtin_* and simplify_builtin_* > really the same and we should canonicalize the naming convention? I didn't realize we had a 3rd routine. Ugh. I don't know which is preferred. Sigh. jeff