On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This looks like it has the same issue with maybe needing to use
>>>> TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT in type comparisons as the shuffle patch.
>>>
>>> I don't think so, we move qualifiers to the vector type from the element
>>> type
>>> in make_vector_type and the tests only look at the component type.
>>>
>>> I am re-testing the patch currently and will commit it if that succeeds.
>>
>> Unfortunately gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-1.c fails with -m32
>> for
>>
>> vector (2, double) d0;
>> vector (2, double) d1;
>> vector (2, long) idres;
>>
>> d0 = (vector (2, double)){(double)argc, 10.};
>> d1 = (vector (2, double)){0., (double)-23};
>> idres = (d0 > d1);
>>
>> as appearantly the type we chose to assign to (d0 > d1) is different
>> from that of idres:
>>
>> /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-1.c:118:5:
>> error: incompatible types when assigning to type '__vector(2) long
>> int' from type '__vector(2) long long int'^M
>>
>> Adjusting it to vector (2, long long) otoh yields, for -m64:
>>
>> /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-1.c:118:5:
>> error: incompatible types when assigning to type '__vector(2) long
>> long int' from type '__vector(2) long int'
>>
>> But those two types are at least compatible from their modes. Joseph,
>> should we accept mode-compatible types in assignments or maybe
>> transparently convert them?
>
> Looks like we have a more suitable solution for these automatically
> generated vector types - mark them with TYPE_VECTOR_OPAQUE.
>
> I'm testing the following incremental patch.
>
> Richard.
>
> Index: gcc/c-typeck.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/c-typeck.c.orig 2011-09-28 16:22:10.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/c-typeck.c 2011-09-28 16:18:39.000000000 +0200
> @@ -9928,8 +9928,10 @@ build_binary_op (location_t location, en
> }
>
> /* Always construct signed integer vector type. */
> - intt = c_common_type_for_size (TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE
> (type0)), 0);
> - result_type = build_vector_type (intt, TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS
> (type0));
> + intt = c_common_type_for_size (GET_MODE_BITSIZE
> + (TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (type0))),
> 0);
> + result_type = build_opaque_vector_type (intt,
> + TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS
> (type0));
> converted = 1;
> break;
> }
> @@ -10063,8 +10065,10 @@ build_binary_op (location_t location, en
> }
>
> /* Always construct signed integer vector type. */
> - intt = c_common_type_for_size (TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE
> (type0)), 0);
> - result_type = build_vector_type (intt, TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS
> (type0));
> + intt = c_common_type_for_size (GET_MODE_BITSIZE
> + (TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (type0))),
> 0);
> + result_type = build_opaque_vector_type (intt,
> + TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS
> (type0));
> converted = 1;
> break;
> }
That doesn't seem to work either. Because we treat the opaque and
non-opaque variants of vector<int> as different (the opaque type isn't
a variant type of the non-opaque one - something suspicious anyway).
I'm going to try to apply some surgery on how we build opaque variants
and then re-visit the above again.
Richard.
