On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'. On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-list _only_ if it's mixed with 'for' ? We could define multiple operator-lists in simplify to be the same as enclosing the simplify in 'for' with number of iterators equal to number of operator-lists. So we could allow (define_operator_list op1 ...) (define_operator_list op2 ...)
(simplify (op1 (op2 ... ))) is equivalent to: (for temp1 (op1) temp2 (op2) (simplify (temp1 (temp2 ...)))) I think we have patterns like these in match-builtin.pd in the match-and-simplify branch And reject mixing of 'for' and operator-lists. Admittedly the implicit 'for' behavior is not obvious from the syntax -;( Thanks, Prathamesh > OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ? > > Thanks, > Prathamesh