On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 20 May 2015 at 18:18, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > >> On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > >> > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> > > >> >> 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' ? > >> > > >> > At least that, yes. > Well I suppose we could extend it to be mixed with 'for' ? > Add the operator lists to the inner-most 'for'. > eg: > (define_operator_list olist ...) > > (for op (...) > (simplify > (op (olist ...)))) > > would be equivalent to: > > (for op (...) > temp (olist) > (simplify > (op (olist ...)))) > > operator-list expansion can be said to simply a short-hand for single > 'for' with number of iterators = number of operator-lists. > If the operator-lists are enclosed within 'for', add them to the > innermost 'for'.
Yes, but I think this use is confusing as to whether the operator lists form a new for (like currently(?)) or if they append to the enclosing for. What we do currently is consistent (always create a new for) but it is confusing behavior - as you noted initially. Richard. > Thanks, > Prathamesh > > >> > > >> >> 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 > >> >> -;( > >> > > >> > Hmm, indeed we have for example > >> > > >> > /* Optimize pow(1.0,y) = 1.0. */ > >> > (simplify > >> > (POW real_onep@0 @1) > >> > @0) > >> > > >> > and I remember wanting that implicit for to make those less ugly. > >> > > >> > So can you rework only rejecting it within for? > >> This patch rejects expanding operator-list inside 'for'. > >> OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ? > > > > Ok. > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > > >> Thanks, > >> Prathamesh > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Richard. > >> > > >> > > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Prathamesh > >> >> > OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ? > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> > Prathamesh > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > >> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, > >> > Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) > >> > > > > -- > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, > > Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) > > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
