On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:36:17PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Before designing an interface which inherently includes that
> information we should think hard about if it's valuable and if a
> tree combiner is the right place.
>
> I have high hopes that we can get the zero/sign extension
> eliminatio
On 07/21/2013 08:14 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I was creating a new gimple/folding interface and wanted some opinions
on the interface.
typedef double_int (*nonzerobits_t)(tree var);
typedef tree (*valueizer_t)(tree var);
class gimple_combin
On 07/20/2013 02:09 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
gimple_combine(bool reas) : nonzerobitsf(NULL), valueizerv(NULL),
allow_full_reassiocation(reas) {}
I think this constructor should be marked "explicit".
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andrew Pinski
>wrote:
>> I was creating a new gimple/folding interface and wanted some
>opinions
>> on the interface.
>>
>> typedef double_int (*nonzerobits_t)(tree var);
>> typedef tree (*valueizer_t)(tree var);
>>
>> class gimple_combine
>
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I was creating a new gimple/folding interface and wanted some opinions
> on the interface.
>
> typedef double_int (*nonzerobits_t)(tree var);
> typedef tree (*valueizer_t)(tree var);
>
> class gimple_combine
> {
> public:
> gimple_combine(n
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I was creating a new gimple/folding interface
Thanks.
and wanted some opinions on the interface.
typedef double_int (*nonzerobits_t)(tree var);
typedef tree (*valueizer_t)(tree var);
class gimple_combine
{
public:
gimple_combine(nonzerobits_t a, v
I was creating a new gimple/folding interface and wanted some opinions
on the interface.
typedef double_int (*nonzerobits_t)(tree var);
typedef tree (*valueizer_t)(tree var);
class gimple_combine
{
public:
gimple_combine(nonzerobits_t a, valueizer_t b) : nonzerobitsf(a),
valueizerv(b), allow_fu
