On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Btw., I did this once to represent constrained expressions on
>> multi-dimensional arrays in SSA form. There control (aka loop) structure was
>> also implicit. Google for 'middle-end array ex
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> Btw., I did this once to represent constrained expressions on
> multi-dimensional arrays in SSA form. There control (aka loop) structure was
> also implicit. Google for 'middle-end array expressions'. The C interface
> was builtins and VLAs.
The descr
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On August 3, 2017 7:05:05 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>Torvald Riegel writes:
On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Torvald Riegel writes:
> > On Wed, 2017-
Richard Biener writes:
> On August 3, 2017 7:05:05 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>Torvald Riegel writes:
>>> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Torvald Riegel writes:
> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> (1) Does
On August 3, 2017 7:05:05 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Torvald Riegel writes:
>> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Torvald Riegel writes:
>>> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> >> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>>
Torvald Riegel writes:
> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Torvald Riegel writes:
>> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>> >>
>> >> (2) Would it be acceptable in principle to add this extensi
On August 3, 2017 5:51:35 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Biener
wrote:
>On August 3, 2017 5:32:40 PM GMT+02:00, Torvald Riegel
> wrote:
>>On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Torvald Riegel writes:
>>> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> >> (1) D
On August 3, 2017 5:32:40 PM GMT+02:00, Torvald Riegel
wrote:
>On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Torvald Riegel writes:
>> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>> >>
>> >> (2) Would it be acce
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:32 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Torvald Riegel writes:
> > > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > >> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
> > >>
> > >> (2) Would it be accep
On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Torvald Riegel writes:
> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
> >>
> >> (2) Would it be acceptable in principle to add this extension to the
> >> GCC C fron
Torvald Riegel writes:
> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>>
>> (2) Would it be acceptable in principle to add this extension to the
>> GCC C frontend (only enabled where necessary)?
>>
>> (3) Should we submit this
On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>
> (2) Would it be acceptable in principle to add this extension to the
> GCC C frontend (only enabled where necessary)?
>
> (3) Should we submit this to the standards committee?
I h
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for the quick feedback.
Joseph Myers writes:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>>
>> (2) Would it be acceptable in principle to add this extension to the
>> GCC C frontend (only enabled where necessary)?
>>
>>
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>
> (2) Would it be acceptable in principle to add this extension to the
> GCC C frontend (only enabled where necessary)?
>
> (3) Should we submit this to the standards committee?
I think this only
14 matches
Mail list logo