Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-13 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> 2013-06-13 Marc Glisse >>> >>> * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_bitwise_binary, >>> associate_plusminus): >>> Generalize to complex and vector. >>> * tree.c (build_all_ones_cst): New f

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-12 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote: 2013-06-13 Marc Glisse * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_bitwise_binary, associate_plusminus): Generalize to complex and vector. * tree.c (build_all_ones_cst): New function. * tree.h (build_all_ones_cst): Declare it. This is OK. Extra

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-12 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote: On 06/12/13 14:17, Marc Glisse wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: I suppose it's explicitely not allowing complex integer constants? Hmm... Thanks, I keep forgetting complex :-( And complex is even more of a pain than vector to handle. Te

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-12 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/12/13 14:17, Marc Glisse wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: I suppose it's explicitely not allowing complex integer constants? Hmm... Thanks, I keep forgetting complex :-( And complex is even more of a pain than vector to handle. Testing for CONSTANT_CLASS_P seems suffic

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-12 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: I suppose it's explicitely not allowing complex integer constants? Hmm... Thanks, I keep forgetting complex :-( And complex is even more of a pain than vector to handle. Testing for CONSTANT_CLASS_P seems sufficient here. Some transformations also se

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-12 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote: I suppose it's explicitely not allowing complex integer constants? Hmm... Thanks, I keep forgetting complex :-( Do we want A+~A -> -1-i for integer complex types? Is using BIT_NOT_EXPR on them even legal? C

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-12 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote: On 06/09/13 13:43, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, just adapting yet another function so it also works with vectors. It seemed convenient to add a new macro. The

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-12 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote: > >> On 06/09/13 13:43, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> just adapting yet another function so it also works with vectors. >>> >>> It seemed convenient to add a new macro. The name sucks (it doesn't

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-11 Thread Marc Glisse
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote: On 06/09/13 13:43, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, just adapting yet another function so it also works with vectors. It seemed convenient to add a new macro. The name sucks (it doesn't match the semantics of INTEGRAL_TYPE_P), but I didn't want to name it INTEGER

Re: More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-11 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/09/13 13:43, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, just adapting yet another function so it also works with vectors. It seemed convenient to add a new macro. The name sucks (it doesn't match the semantics of INTEGRAL_TYPE_P), but I didn't want to name it INTEGER_SCALAR_OR_VECTOR_CONSTANT_P and didn't

More forwprop for vectors

2013-06-09 Thread Marc Glisse
Hello, just adapting yet another function so it also works with vectors. It seemed convenient to add a new macro. The name sucks (it doesn't match the semantics of INTEGRAL_TYPE_P), but I didn't want to name it INTEGER_SCALAR_OR_VECTOR_CONSTANT_P and didn't have any good idea for a short name