On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 8 February 2017 at 17:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 7 February 2017 at 20:06, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Richard,
> >>
On 8 February 2017 at 17:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 7 February 2017 at 20:06, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Richard,
>> >> The attached patch tries to handle ABS_EXPR in gimple-fe.
>>
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 7 February 2017 at 20:06, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Richard,
> >> The attached patch tries to handle ABS_EXPR in gimple-fe.
> >> I am not sure if __ABS_EXPR should be parsed as id (like
On 7 February 2017 at 20:06, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>> The attached patch tries to handle ABS_EXPR in gimple-fe.
>> I am not sure if __ABS_EXPR should be parsed as id (like __MEM)
>> or parse it as keyword (like __GIMPLE). Currently
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'm not sure whether new RID_ keywords would be prefered for this
> kind of stuff. We added one for __PHI. Joseph, is the RID_ space
> somehow limited so that we should avoid ending up with, say, up to
> 226 RID_s for GIMPLE (upper estimate taken from
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> The attached patch tries to handle ABS_EXPR in gimple-fe.
> I am not sure if __ABS_EXPR should be parsed as id (like __MEM)
> or parse it as keyword (like __GIMPLE). Currently in the patch, I
> parse it as id.
> Patch passes gimplefe t
