On Fri, 17 Mar 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi Richard, > > I'm only picking this up now. Just going through your earlier comments and > stuff and I noticed we didn't address the situation with the gimple::build. Do > you want me to add overloaded static member functions to cover all > gimple_build_* functions, or just create one to replace vect_gimple_build and > we create them as needed? It's more work but I think adding them all would be > better. I'd even argue that it would be nice to replace the old ones with the > new ones, but I can imagine you might not want that as it makes backporting > and the likes a bit annoying... > > Let me know what you prefer, I'll go work on your latest comments too.
I think the series was resolved and I approved it. As for vect_gimple_build the better way forward would be to use gimple_build () as existing but add a vect_finish_stmt_* handling a gimple_seq. Richard.
