http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Mar 1 18:44:25 2014
New Revision: 208246
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208246&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58845
* typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): Sorry on vector&&vect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > (v1 != { 0, 0, ... }) & (v2 != { 0, 0, ... })
>
> FWIW this seems to be what clang does, without any kind of seq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Mar 1 14:14:25 2014
New Revision: 208243
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208243&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58845
* typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): Sorry on vector&&vect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 31343
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31343&action=edit
WIP
Let me attach this here. save_expr+build_vector_from_val is unnecessary, the
BIT_*_EXPR case would handle it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> Yeah, exactly. Still if there is a sequence point at && or ||
> (even if both arms are always executed) then the order of evaluating
> side-effects is importan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> Thus no short-circuiting for vector && or ||.
Indeed. Though we already deviated from OpenCL for ?: and as mentioned in my
patch we could do short-circuit for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
>
> --- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Well, what does OpenCL specify here?
"The logical operators and (&&), or (||) operate on all scalar and vector
built-in types. For scalar built-in types only, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Well, what does OpenCL specify here? IIRC we've decided on -1 (all bits set)
as true for vectors and 0 as false. I'd prefer to allow trivial lowering
to | and & which IIRC are already supported. That means
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #4 from Volker Reichelt ---
Btw, clang 3.2 accepts the first code snippet and rejects the second one.
I.e. it accepts && and || for vectors and returns a vector of the same size.
IMHO GCC should also go for this route. Not because of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, |
|rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code,
19 matches
Mail list logo
