On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
Thus you are rejecting a boolean valued vector comparison which we
otherwise happily accept. I suppose that makes sense (even though
at least equality compares can make sense).
I agree that boolean equality comparison of vectors makes sense, but I
d
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> (I forgot to send this at the time)
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> - else if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && TREE_CODE (type) !=
>>> VECTOR_TYPE)
>>> + else if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && !VOID_TYPE_P (type)
(I forgot to send this at the time)
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
- else if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && TREE_CODE (type) !=
VECTOR_TYPE)
+ else if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && !VOID_TYPE_P (type)
+ && TREE_CODE (type) != VECTOR_TYPE)
[...]
Ok for th
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch makes gimple checking of vector comparisons more strict by
> ensuring that it doesn't return a boolean. It also fixes a bug that this
> check detected in fold-const.c: for (void)(x<0), the C front-end was calling
> fold_un
