> On 31 Aug 2017, at 2:12 PM, Michael Clark wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 7:20 AM, Matthew Fortune
>> wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>> On 08/30/2017 06:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Michael Clark
wrote:
>
>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:43
> On 31 Aug 2017, at 7:20 AM, Matthew Fortune
> wrote:
>
> Jeff Law writes:
>> On 08/30/2017 06:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Michael Clark
>>> wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:43 PM, Michael Clark wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/simplify-r
Snapshot gcc-6-20170830 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20170830/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6
Jeff Law writes:
> On 08/30/2017 06:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Michael Clark
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:43 PM, Michael Clark wrote:
> >>>
> > diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
> > index ce632ae..25dd70f 100644
>
On 08/30/2017 04:41 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm looking at tree-ssa-threadbackward.c, where we pass around a lot
> of "vec" pointers representing a path through a
> flow graph.
>
> I'm wondering why we use va_gc, when AFAICT, the paths are local to
> the pass, and we can easily free t
On 08/30/2017 12:34 AM, Michael Clark wrote:
>
>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 12:36 PM, Michael Clark wrote:
>>
>> Dear GCC folk,
>>
>>
>> # Issue Background
>>
>> We’re investigating an issue with redundant sign-extension instructions
>> being emitted with the riscv backend. Firstly I would like to stat
On 08/30/2017 06:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Michael Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:43 PM, Michael Clark wrote:
>>>
> diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
> index ce632ae..25dd70f 100644
> --- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
> ++
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Michael Clark wrote:
>
>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:43 PM, Michael Clark wrote:
>>
diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
index ce632ae..25dd70f 100644
--- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
+++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
@@ -1503,6 +1503,10 @@ simp
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm looking at tree-ssa-threadbackward.c, where we pass around a lot
> of "vec" pointers representing a path through a
> flow graph.
>
> I'm wondering why we use va_gc, when AFAICT, the paths are local to
> the pass, and we can easi
Hi!
I'm looking at tree-ssa-threadbackward.c, where we pass around a lot
of "vec" pointers representing a path through a
flow graph.
I'm wondering why we use va_gc, when AFAICT, the paths are local to
the pass, and we can easily free them with path.release() at the end
of the pass. For that matt
> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:43 PM, Michael Clark wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>>> index ce632ae..25dd70f 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>>> @@ -1503,6 +1503,10 @@ simplify_unary_operation_1 (enum rtx_code code,
>>> machine_mode m
> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:14 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Michael Clark wrote:
>> Dear GCC folk,
>>
>>
>> # Issue Background
>>
>> We’re investigating an issue with redundant sign-extension instructions
>> being emitted with the riscv backend. Firstly I would
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Michael Clark wrote:
> Dear GCC folk,
>
>
> # Issue Background
>
> We’re investigating an issue with redundant sign-extension instructions being
> emitted with the riscv backend. Firstly I would like to state that riscv is
> possibly a unique backend with respect
13 matches
Mail list logo