On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Robin Dapp wrote:
> On 10/9/23 09:32, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Okt 09 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> >
> >> Turns out COND(_LEN)?_ADD can't work.
> >
> > It should work though. Tcl regexps are a superset of POSIX EREs.
> >
>
> The problem is that COND(_LEN)?_ADD m
Thanks Robin. Could you send V3 to Richi ? And commit it if Richi is ok with
that.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-10-09 18:26
To: Andreas Schwab; juzhe.zhong
CC: rdapp.gcc; gcc-patches; rguenther; jeffreyalaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] TEST: Fix vect_cond_arith_* dump checks
On 10/9/23 09:32, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Okt 09 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
>
>> Turns out COND(_LEN)?_ADD can't work.
>
> It should work though. Tcl regexps are a superset of POSIX EREs.
>
The problem is that COND(_LEN)?_ADD matches two times against
COND_LEN_ADD and a scan-tree-dum
On Okt 09 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Turns out COND(_LEN)?_ADD can't work.
It should work though. Tcl regexps are a superset of POSIX EREs.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something comp
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Hi, Richi and Robin.
>
> Turns out COND(_LEN)?_ADD can't work.
Did you try quoting? Try (_LEN|) maybe.
> Is this patch Ok ? Or do you have another solution to change the dump check
> for RVV?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
>
Hi, Richi and Robin.
Turns out COND(_LEN)?_ADD can't work.
Is this patch Ok ? Or do you have another solution to change the dump check for
RVV?
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: 2023-10-08 09:33
To: gcc-patches
CC: rguenther; jeffreyalaw; rdapp.gcc; Juzhe-Zhong
Subject:
