On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 08:02, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> another possibility would be to represent a = b < c ? d : e as
>
> GIMPLE_ASSIGN (LT_EXPR, a, b, c, d, e)
>
> and a = (b < c) as
>
> GIMPLE_ASSIGN (LT_EXPR, a, b, c, true, false)
Yeah, I think I like this one. We don't
Hi,
> On 03/10/08 08:24, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >You could either do
> >
> >GIMPLE_ASSIGN
>
> But 'cond' would be an unflattened tree expression. I'm trying to avoid
> that.
>
> >or invent COND_GT_EXPR, COND_GE_EXPR, etc. (at least in GIMPLE
> >we always have a comparison in COND_EXPR_C
On 03/10/08 08:24, Richard Guenther wrote:
You could either do
GIMPLE_ASSIGN
But 'cond' would be an unflattened tree expression. I'm trying to avoid
that.
or invent COND_GT_EXPR, COND_GE_EXPR, etc. (at least in GIMPLE
we always have a comparison in COND_EXPR_COND, never a plain
boolean
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 14:22, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > extract_ops_from_tree would return GIMPLE_COPY as subcode and
> > the whole expression as op1, where's the problem?
>
> Sorry, I misunderstoo
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 14:22, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> extract_ops_from_tree would return GIMPLE_COPY as subcode and
> the whole expression as op1, where's the problem?
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were advocating *against*
GIMPLE_COPY.
> > I need to introduce
Hi,
> On 3/9/08 3:24 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
>
> >however, it would make things simpler. Now, we need to distiguish
> >three cases -- SINGLE, UNARY and BINARY; if we pretended that
> >GIMPLE_COPY is an unary operator, this would be reduced just
> >to UNARY and BINARY. Of course, GIMPLE_COPY wo
On 3/9/08 3:24 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
however, it would make things simpler. Now, we need to distiguish
three cases -- SINGLE, UNARY and BINARY; if we pretended that
GIMPLE_COPY is an unary operator, this would be reduced just
to UNARY and BINARY. Of course, GIMPLE_COPY would never be used
i
Hi,
> >>So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
> >>operands and used only for its numeric value.
> >
> >another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and
> >get rid of the SINGLE_RHS case altogether (of course, unlike any other
> >unary operator, it
On 3/9/08 11:31 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
> operands and used only for its numeric value.
another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an un
On 3/9/08 10:46 AM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
Hi,
So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
operands and used only for its numeric value.
another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and
get rid of the SINGLE_RHS case altogether (of course, unlike any
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
> > operands and used only for its numeric value.
>
> another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and
> get rid of the
Hi,
> So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0
> operands and used only for its numeric value.
another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and
get rid of the SINGLE_RHS case altogether (of course, unlike any other
unary operator, it would not requir
Hi,
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 08:15, Richard Guenther
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What is GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS after all?
> >
> > Represents a "copy" operation, an operand with no operator (e.g., a = 3, b
>
On 3/9/08 9:24 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So as opposed to a unary operation which would look exactly the same apart
from having a subcode? So what does gimple_assign_subcode () return
for the GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS case? Some random garbage?
No. A unary operation is different. For instance, N
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 08:15, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What is GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS after all?
>
> Represents a "copy" operation, an operand with no operator (e.g., a = 3, b =
> c)
>
> '3' and '
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 08:15, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS after all?
Represents a "copy" operation, an operand with no operator (e.g., a = 3, b = c)
'3' and 'c' are "single" operands. There is no operator involved in
the assignment.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 19:29, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem of course is that for GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS, we do not maintain
> the invariant that
>
> gimple_assign_subcode (stmt) == TREE_CODE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt)),
>
> so gimple_assign_subcode typically will not be SS
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed an error in a part of the code that I converted, that
> looks this way:
>
> switch (gimple_assign_subcode (stmt))
> {
> case SSA_NAME:
> handle_ssa_name ();
> break;
>
> case PLUS_EXPR:
Hi,
I just noticed an error in a part of the code that I converted, that
looks this way:
switch (gimple_assign_subcode (stmt))
{
case SSA_NAME:
handle_ssa_name ();
break;
case PLUS_EXPR:
handle_plus ();
break;
default:
something ();
}
The problem of course is that for
19 matches
Mail list logo
