On October 27, 2014 7:43:05 PM CET, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>Ok, I've now pushed the previously-approved first half of this, and am
>now
>looking at replacing VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR with a VEC_PERM_EXPR. However:
>does it seem
>reasonable to push this patch 11 (removing VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR and
>vec_shl_optab)
Ok, I've now pushed the previously-approved first half of this, and am now
looking at replacing VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR with a VEC_PERM_EXPR. However: does it seem
reasonable to push this patch 11 (removing VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR and vec_shl_optab)
out-of-sequence? The patch applies almost-cleanly, there is ju
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> The VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR tree code, and the corresponding vec_shl_optab, seem to
> have been added for completeness, providing a counterpart to VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR
> and vec_shr_optab. However, whereas VEC_RSHIFT_EXPRs are generated (only) by
> the ve
The VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR tree code, and the corresponding vec_shl_optab, seem to have
been added for completeness, providing a counterpart to VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR and
vec_shr_optab. However, whereas VEC_RSHIFT_EXPRs are generated (only) by the
vectorizer, VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR expressions are not generated at a
