On 4/18/19 1:56 PM, Jan Hubička wrote:
> Hello,
> the patch looks good to me. I think in the copyright comment you want to
> copy all the years of copyright of original i386.c since the code is not
> from 2019. also there are missing licence comments in the .h files.
Thanks for review.
Yes, I'll
Hello,
the patch looks good to me. I think in the copyright comment you want to
copy all the years of copyright of original i386.c since the code is not
from 2019. also there are missing licence comments in the .h files.
I would probably put the bigger machine specific optimization passes into
sepa
Hi.
I'm sending first version of the split, which has following
statistics:
gcc/config.gcc | 5 +-
gcc/config/i386/i386-builtins.c | 2563 ++
gcc/config/i386/i386-builtins.h | 314 ++
gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.c | 19868
+++
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:54 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 3/12/19 2:50 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> > On 3/12/19, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I've thinking about the file split about quite some time, mainly
> >> in context of PR84402. I would like to discuss if it's fine for
> >> maintainer
On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 16:08 +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've thinking about the file split about quite some time, mainly
> in context of PR84402. I would like to discuss if it's fine for
> maintainers of the target to make such split and into which logical
> components can the file be spl
On 3/12/19 2:50 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 3/12/19, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I've thinking about the file split about quite some time, mainly
>> in context of PR84402. I would like to discuss if it's fine for
>> maintainers of the target to make such split and into which logical
>> comp
On 3/12/19, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've thinking about the file split about quite some time, mainly
> in context of PR84402. I would like to discuss if it's fine for
> maintainers of the target to make such split and into which logical
> components can the file be split?
>
> I'm suggesting
