On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> You shouldn't need the VECTOR_CST handling - constant propagation should >> already ensure properly simplified code here (and is the more canonical >> place >> to handle this). > > > IIRC, I added VECTOR_CST because of mixed constructor/vector_cst shuffles > (and because it wasn't too hard). If I remove it (I can), I guess some of > the testcases won't work anymore.
I see. If you still have a testcase can you look if CCP does not do something it should? > >> You do work above and then bail late here. Always do early exists early >> to reduce useless compile-time. > > > Ok. > > >>> + opt = fold_ternary (VEC_PERM_EXPR, TREE_TYPE(op0), arg0, arg1, >>> op2); >>> + if (!opt) >>> + return 0; >>> + gimple_assign_set_rhs_from_tree (gsi, opt); >> >> >> You need to verify that fold_ternary returns something that is valid >> GIMPLE. >> fold () in general happily returns trees that are in the need of >> re-gimplification. >> You expect a CONSTRUCTOR or VECTOR_CST here, so you should check >> for that. > > > Ok. > > Thank you for the reviews, > > -- > Marc Glisse
