On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > Syntaxwise I had this idea for adding generic predicates to expressions:
>> >
>> > (plus (minus @0 @1):predicate
>> > @2)
>> > (...)
>>
>> So you'd write
>>
>> (plus @0 :integer_
Hi,
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Syntaxwise I had this idea for adding generic predicates to expressions:
> >
> > (plus (minus @0 @1):predicate
> > @2)
> > (...)
>
> So you'd write
>
> (plus @0 :integer_zerop)
>
> instead of
>
> (plus @0 integer_zerop)
>
> ?
plus i
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> To me predicate (and capture without expression or predicate)
>> differs from expression in that predicate is clearly a leaf of the
>> expression tree while we have to recurse into expres
Hi,
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> To me predicate (and capture without expression or predicate)
> differs from expression in that predicate is clearly a leaf of the
> expression tree while we have to recurse into expression operands.
>
> Now, if we want to support applying predica
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "gimple_match_and_simplified to \[^\n\r\]*=
> x_\\d\+\\(D\\) - y_\\d\+\\(D\\)" "forwprop1" } } */
No need to quote +, it's not special to tcl.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53
>>> * I have written test-cases for patterns in match.pd (attached patch), which
>>> result in PASS. Could you review them for me ?
>>
>> Sure. It looks good to me, though you can look at the changed match-1.c
>> testcase on the branch where I've changed the matching to look for the
>> debug outpu
>> So I came along the need to add another predicate for REAL_CST
>> leafs which makes me wonder if we should support tree codes
>> as predicates. Thus instead of writing
>>
>> (match_and_simplify
>> (plus (plus @0 INTEGER_CST_P@1) INTEGER_CST_P@2)
>> (plus @0 (plus @1 @2)))
>>
>> write
>>
>>
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Pratham
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathame
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Bie
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wrote:
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wrote:
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>> wrote:
>>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>>>
a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
in x_.\\\
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>>
>>> a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
>>> in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
>>
>> Two of the three backslas
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
>> a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
>> in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
>
> Two of the three backslashes are eaten by the tcl parser. But actually
> only two backslashes
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
> in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
Two of the three backslashes are eaten by the tcl parser. But actually
only two backslashes are needed, since the parens are not special to tcl
(but are spec
20 matches
Mail list logo
