Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-23 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 20 May 2015 at 17:39, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> >>> On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni >>> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. >>>

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-21 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 20 May 2015 at 18:18, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > >> On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 20 May 2015 at 16:

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-20 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 20 May 2015 at 18:18, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener wrote: >> > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >> >> On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > This

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-20 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > >> On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. >

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-20 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. >> On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-li

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-20 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: > > Hi, > > This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. > On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-list _only_ > if it's mixed with 'for' ? At least that, y

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-20 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > Hi, > This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. > OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ? Ok. Thanks, Richard.

Re: [match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-20 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > Hi, > This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-list _only_ if it's mixed with 'for' ? We could define multiple operator-lists in simplify to be the same as enclosin

[match-and-simplify] reject expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'

2015-05-20 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
Hi, This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ? Thanks, Prathamesh 2015-05-20 Prathamesh Kulkarni * genmatch.c (parser::record_operlist): Remove. (parser::oper_lists_set): Likewise. (parser::oper_lists): Likewise.