On 05/10/2026 12:28, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2026, Alex Coplan wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > r17-71-g3f6d37193c7987ee9362c073dd5da6f7419c87b3 adds the following
> > assert in vect_create_new_slp_node:
> >
> > gcc_assert (code == ERROR_MARK || code == VEC_PERM_EXPR);
> >
> > which seems to suggest that SLP nodes should only ever have one of these
> > two codes.
>
> Yes, this is in preparation (TODO) for dropping 'code' in favor of
> some (class?) sub-setting of slp_tree, separating permute from
> regular nodes.
I see, thanks for the explanation.
>
> > Recently I have been studying how the recognition of complex add with
> > rotate works. There is code in vect_build_slp_tree_2 which, in the
> > two_operators case, builds synthetic {PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR nodes which are
> > then packed together with a permutation. This is later recognized by
> > the complex add slp pattern.
> >
> > I noticed that this code sets the code fields of the synthetic nodes to
> > the relevant tree codes, e.g. {PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR, but this isn't actually
> > needed, since the pattern code just looks at the code of the
> > representative stmt for non-permutation nodes. It's also at odds with
> > the recently-added assert above.
> >
> > This patch therefore drops setting the codes on those nodes, and instead
> > leaves them set to ERROR_MARK (meaning that consumers should look at the
> > representative, as the patterns currently do). It is intended to be a
> > non-functional cleanup.
> >
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on aarch64-linux-gnu, arm-linux-gnueabihf, and
> > x86_64-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
>
> OK.
Pushed to trunk, thanks.
Alex
>
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * tree-vect-slp.cc (vect_build_slp_tree_2): In the two_operators
> > case, avoid setting the code field on the plus/minus nodes.
> >
>
> --
> Richard Biener <[email protected]>
> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
> Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
> GF: Stefan Gaiser, Jochen Jaser, Abhinav Puri; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
