On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Currently this is accepted:
>>> (for plus (mult div)
>>> ...)
>>> which is incorrect. This patch puts mo
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Currently this is accepted:
>> (for plus (mult div)
>> ...)
>> which is incorrect. This patch puts more error-checks on the user-defined
>> operator in for-pattern.
>
> Nice
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Currently this is accepted:
> (for plus (mult div)
> ...)
> which is incorrect. This patch puts more error-checks on the user-defined
> operator in for-pattern.
Nicely spotted issue. But I prefer to fix it simpler like with the foll
Currently this is accepted:
(for plus (mult div)
...)
which is incorrect. This patch puts more error-checks on the user-defined
operator in for-pattern.
* genmatch.c
(insert_operator): New function.
(parse_for): Call insert_operator.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
Index: gcc/genmatch.c
