On 2014-06-16, 12:14 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> wrote:
Any reason the check couldn't be like the earlier patch ?
i.e. else if (targetm.spill_class)
{
....
}
I've just preferred to put most conditions in one place. That is the
only reason. But if you want you can commit your variant.
I would have approved your patch, if I read your email before. I was in
hurry to fix it as the original patch broke most LRA targets (ones
without the hook definition) and the mistake itself was embarrassing for me.
