Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-12-07 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> Richard Sandiford writes: Richard Biener writes: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> It was clea

Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-12-06 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Biener writes: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Richard Sandiford writes: >>> Richard Biener writes: On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > It was clear from the SVE reviews that people were unhappy with how > "spe

ASSERT_* macros (was Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs)

2017-12-06 Thread David Malcolm
On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 14:40 +, Richard Sandiford wrote: > David Malcolm writes: > > On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:57 +, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > I can't really comment on the representation ideas, but I'm always > > happy to see new selftests... > > > > ***

Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-12-06 Thread Richard Sandiford
David Malcolm writes: > On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:57 +, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > [...] > > I can't really comment on the representation ideas, but I'm always > happy to see new selftests... > > *** test_labels () >> *** 13954,13959 >> --- 14179,14350 >> ASSERT_FALS

Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-12-01 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Richard Biener writes: >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford >>> wrote: It was clear from the SVE reviews that people were unhappy with how "special" the variable-length case was

Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-11-30 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Sandiford writes: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> It was clear from the SVE reviews that people were unhappy with how >>> "special" the variable-length case was. One particular concern was >>> the use of VEC_DUPLICATE_CST and

Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-11-29 Thread Richard Sandiford
Thanks for the quick feedback! Richard Biener writes: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> It was clear from the SVE reviews that people were unhappy with how >> "special" the variable-length case was. One particular concern was >> the use of VEC_DUPLICATE_CST and V

Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-11-29 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > It was clear from the SVE reviews that people were unhappy with how > "special" the variable-length case was. One particular concern was > the use of VEC_DUPLICATE_CST and VEC_SERIES_CST, and the way that > that would in turn lead to di

Re: RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-11-29 Thread David Malcolm
On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:57 +, Richard Sandiford wrote: [...] I can't really comment on the representation ideas, but I'm always happy to see new selftests... *** test_labels () > *** 13954,13959 > --- 14179,14350 > ASSERT_FALSE (FORCED_LABEL (label_decl)); > } >

RFC: Variable-length VECTOR_CSTs

2017-11-29 Thread Richard Sandiford
It was clear from the SVE reviews that people were unhappy with how "special" the variable-length case was. One particular concern was the use of VEC_DUPLICATE_CST and VEC_SERIES_CST, and the way that that would in turn lead to different representations of VEC_PERM_EXPRs with constant permute vect