Hi,
some short note on coupling loop tiling and gloog code generator.
I will need to extend mapping of old induction variables <-> new
induction variables. Until now I assume preserved one-to-one
relationship. But, this does not allow many of the loop
transformations (like loop inversion). I will
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20080626 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20080626/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Andrew Haley writes:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> But, I am actually ok with having it be disabled by default, provided
> that regressions affect gcj are treated seriously: fixed in a timely
> way by the person causing the regression, or, if not, letting gcj
Hello,
We received somebody is request to change your RapidShare password. To confirm
this request and change it or to cancel changing of account is password, follow
the link below. Confirming by this link or canceling this request helps us to
prevent unauthorized access to your account.
All,
--- Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> >>> I agree. I also agree that if someone breaks Java, they should be
> >>> required to fix the problem. In fact, we could have the rule that the
> >>> Java maintainers get to revert a patch s
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>>> I agree. I also agree that if someone breaks Java, they should be
>>> required to fix the problem. In fact, we could have the rule that the
>>> Java maintainers get to revert a patch summarily based merely on the
>>> fact that there exists a Java
Andrew Haley wrote:
I agree. I also agree that if someone breaks Java, they should be
required to fix the problem. In fact, we could have the rule that the
Java maintainers get to revert a patch summarily based merely on the
fact that there exists a Java post-patch failure that does not occur
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
But, I am actually ok with having it be disabled by default, provided
that regressions affect gcj are treated seriously: fixed in a timely
way by the person causing the regression, or, if not, letting gcj
maintainers start the patch-
On 6/26/08 12:06 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I am a huge fan of testing, but I do think that right now we're running
too much testing for not enough return. It's not that the testing is
bad, or that more testing doesn't prevent bugs; it's that the marginal
cost of bug-prevention from the Java te
From: "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:32:35 +0200
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:09 AM, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The extra 16 bytes of space allocated is so that GCC can perform a
> > secondary reload of a quad floating point value. It always has t
10 matches
Mail list logo
