On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:54:39AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >--- gcc/c/c-fold.c
> >+++ gcc/c/c-fold.c
> >@@ -528,6 +528,23 @@ c_fully_fold_internal (tree expr, bool in_init, bool
> >*maybe_const_operands,
> > *maybe_const_itself &= op2_const_self;
> > goto out;
> >
> >+ case VEC_COND_EXPR:
> >+ orig_op0 = op0 = TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0);
> >+ op1 = TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1);
> >+ op2 = TREE_OPERAND (expr, 2);
> >+ op0 = c_fully_fold_internal (op0, in_init, maybe_const_operands,
> >+ maybe_const_itself, for_int_const);
> >+ STRIP_TYPE_NOPS (op0);
> >+
> >+ /* OP1 will be a vector of -1 and OP2 a vector if 0, as created in
> >+ build_vec_cmp -- no need to fold them. */
> Is this worth verifying with a gcc_assert? Your call.
>
> OK with or without the gcc_assert that op1/op2 are constants.
I think either we should have an gcc_checking_assert, or can't
we just handle VEC_COND_EXPR like COND_EXPR, with no extra code?
Jakub
