The mail I pointed to ( 
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647966.html ) is an answer 
to the topic started by Dimitrije Milošević. I replied to the topic in the same 
way as you answered here: 
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/604298.html .
The meaning of all the tests is elaborated in the mail I pointed to ( 
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647966.html ). The mail I 
pointed to contains a link to the patch ( 
https://github.com/rakicaleksandar1999/gcc/tree/bug_109429 ) but it joined with 
a full stop.

I will not accept my work to be presented as irrelevant and inappropriate.

________________________________________
From: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:50 PM
To: Aleksandar Rakic
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; jeffreya...@gmail.com; rguent...@suse.de; 
ja...@redhat.com; Djordje Todorovic; Jovan Dmitrovic
Subject: Re: [PING] Re: [PATCH 1/2] ivopts: Revert computation of address cost 
complexity

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 2:28 PM Aleksandar Rakic
<aleksandar.ra...@syrmia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping the following patch:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647966.html
>   a patch for the computation of the complexity for the unsupported 
> addressing modes in ivopts

The thread starting at
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/604128.html
contains much information.  The mail you point to contains
inappropriate testsuite additions,
refers to a commit that doesn't look relevant and in fact does not
"revert" anything.  I also
can't remember seeing it, it might have been classified as spam.

I would consider to instead of citing the patch by reference to re-post it.

Richard.

>   This patch should be a fix for the bug which is described on the following 
> link:
>   https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109429
>   It modifies the order of the complexity calculation. By fixing the 
> complexities, the
>   candidate selection is also fixed, which leads to the smaller code size.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>         Aleksandar Rakić

Reply via email to