On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > Syntaxwise I had this idea for adding generic predicates to expressions:
>> >
>> > (plus (minus @0 @1):predicate
>> > @2)
>> > (...)
>>
>> So you'd write
>>
>> (plus @0 :integer_
Hi,
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Syntaxwise I had this idea for adding generic predicates to expressions:
> >
> > (plus (minus @0 @1):predicate
> > @2)
> > (...)
>
> So you'd write
>
> (plus @0 :integer_zerop)
>
> instead of
>
> (plus @0 integer_zerop)
>
> ?
plus i
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> To me predicate (and capture without expression or predicate)
>> differs from expression in that predicate is clearly a leaf of the
>> expression tree while we have to recurse into expres
Hi,
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> To me predicate (and capture without expression or predicate)
> differs from expression in that predicate is clearly a leaf of the
> expression tree while we have to recurse into expression operands.
>
> Now, if we want to support applying predica
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "gimple_match_and_simplified to \[^\n\r\]*=
> x_\\d\+\\(D\\) - y_\\d\+\\(D\\)" "forwprop1" } } */
No need to quote +, it's not special to tcl.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53
>>> * I have written test-cases for patterns in match.pd (attached patch), which
>>> result in PASS. Could you review them for me ?
>>
>> Sure. It looks good to me, though you can look at the changed match-1.c
>> testcase on the branch where I've changed the matching to look for the
>> debug outpu
>> So I came along the need to add another predicate for REAL_CST
>> leafs which makes me wonder if we should support tree codes
>> as predicates. Thus instead of writing
>>
>> (match_and_simplify
>> (plus (plus @0 INTEGER_CST_P@1) INTEGER_CST_P@2)
>> (plus @0 (plus @1 @2)))
>>
>> write
>>
>>
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Pratham
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathame
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Bie
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wrote:
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>>> wrote:
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab
>> wrote:
>>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>>>
a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
in x_.\\\
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>>
>>> a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
>>> in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
>>
>> Two of the three backslas
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
>> a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
>> in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
>
> Two of the three backslashes are eaten by the tcl parser. But actually
> only two backslashes
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
> in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
Two of the three backslashes are eaten by the tcl parser. But actually
only two backslashes are needed, since the parens are not special to tcl
(but are spec
Hi,
I was trying to write test-case for the pattern A + -B -> A - B
(currently written for only int type).
Is the test-case written correctly (attached) ?
a) I am not able to follow why 3 slashes are required here
in x_.\\\(D\\\) ? Why does x_.\(D\) not work ?
(I saw 3 slashes used in a testca
21 matches
Mail list logo