Re: [RFC] GCC vector extension: binary operators vs. differing signedness

2014-12-17 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Richard Biener wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >> > Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand >> >> wrote: >> >> > However, if we make that change, there will be some case

Re: [RFC] GCC vector extension: binary operators vs. differing signedness

2014-12-16 Thread Ulrich Weigand
Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand > >> wrote: > >> > However, if we make that change, there will be some cases that regress: > >> > the > >> > problem is that an expressio

Re: [RFC] GCC vector extension: binary operators vs. differing signedness

2014-12-15 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >> > However, if we make that change, there will be some cases that regress: the >> > problem is that an expression "x + y" has *one* result type, and some >>

Re: [RFC] GCC vector extension: binary operators vs. differing signedness

2014-12-12 Thread Ulrich Weigand
Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > However, if we make that change, there will be some cases that regress: the > > problem is that an expression "x + y" has *one* result type, and some things > > you do with the result will require that type to match

Re: [RFC] GCC vector extension: binary operators vs. differing signedness

2014-12-12 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >> > So at the very least, we should bring the documentation in line with the >> > actual behavior. However, as seen above, that actual behavior is probably >

Re: [RFC] GCC vector extension: binary operators vs. differing signedness

2014-12-11 Thread Ulrich Weigand
Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > So at the very least, we should bring the documentation in line with the > > actual behavior. However, as seen above, that actual behavior is probably > > not really useful in any case, at least in C. > > > > > >

Re: [RFC] GCC vector extension: binary operators vs. differing signedness

2014-12-11 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Hello, > > we've noticed the following behavior of the GCC vector extension, and were > wondering whether this is actually intentional: > > When you use binary operators on two vectors, GCC will accept not only > operands > that use the sa

[RFC] GCC vector extension: binary operators vs. differing signedness

2014-12-10 Thread Ulrich Weigand
Hello, we've noticed the following behavior of the GCC vector extension, and were wondering whether this is actually intentional: When you use binary operators on two vectors, GCC will accept not only operands that use the same vector type, but also operands whose types only differ in signedness