On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:02:24PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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'm going to add the asserts. I should've add them in the first place.
> 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?
It works (I seem to remember testing that variant), but the COND_EXPR case
code does a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to make sense for vectors, like
checking for truthvalue_false_node, folding op1/op2, playing games with
maybe_const_* stuff... So I decided to add a new case.
Marek
