Ok, I've now pushed the previously-approved first half of this, and am now
looking at replacing VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR with a VEC_PERM_EXPR. However: does it seem
reasonable to push this patch 11 (removing VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR and vec_shl_optab)
out-of-sequence? The patch applies almost-cleanly, there is just a one-line
conflict with a change to a comment from the previous patch (which I'm skipping)...
Cheers, Alan
Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawre...@arm.com> wrote:
The VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR tree code, and the corresponding vec_shl_optab, seem to
have been added for completeness, providing a counterpart to VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR
and vec_shr_optab. However, whereas VEC_RSHIFT_EXPRs are generated (only) by
the vectorizer, VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR expressions are not generated at all, so
there seems little point in maintaining it.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
aarch64.exp+vect.exp on aarch64-none-elf and aarch64_be-none-elf.
Ah, there it is ;)
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_2): Remove code handling VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR.
* fold-const.c (const_binop): Likewise.
* cfgexpand.c (expand_debug_expr): Likewise.
* tree-inline.c (estimate_operator_cost, dump_generic_node,
op_code_prio, op_symbol_code): Likewise.
* tree-vect-generic.c (expand_vector_operations_1): Likewise.
* optabs.c (optab_for_tree_code): Likewise.
(expand_vec_shift_expr): Likewise, update comment.
* tree.def: Delete VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR, remove comment.
* optabs.h (expand_vec_shift_expr): Remove comment re.
VEC_LSHIFT_EXPR.
* optabs.def: Remove vec_shl_optab.
* doc/md.texi: Remove references to vec_shr_m.
