On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:41:53PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > <han...@stressinduktion.org> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:41:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >> For a "quick" GCC implementation of the builtins you could expand > >> them to a open-coded sequence during gimplification. But due to > >> the issues pointed out above I'm not sure it is the best interface > >> to support (though now the names are taken). > > > > I played around with gcc internals for the first time today and came > > up with this. As this is my first patch to gcc I am very happy to hear > > feedback. Thanks! > > Looks reasonable for a first patch to GCC! New functions miss a > toplevel comment and the big conditionals would benefit from a comment > spelling out in a more readable way what is tested.
I'll do that. > Note that you generally should use fold_buildN instead of buildN. Thanks for the hint. > And the patch lacks additions to gcc/doc/extend.texi documenting > these builtins. The patch was merely meant as a PoC to see whether the approach of rewriting the code during gimplification is still acceptable and thus only focused on that part. In the end I want to provide a complete patch which adds multiplication checks and also updates the documentation. > And then we come to the issue that a patch of this size requires a > copyright assignment with the FSF - do you have one covering GCC work? No, not yet, but I'll read up on it and will follow-up on that with the relevant persons. Thank you, Hannes
