Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Can't he just call find_many_sub_basic_blocks?
>
> Are you teasing us with some RTL stuff that had been trying to remove?
Although of course lower-subreg.c is RTL, so never mind. Sorry.
Ian
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Can't he just call find_many_sub_basic_blocks?
>
> Are you teasing us with some RTL stuff that had been trying to remove?
I don't think so I used to use it in lower-subreg.c before the code
got tightened up
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Can't he just call find_many_sub_basic_blocks?
Are you teasing us with some RTL stuff that had been trying to remove?
-- Pinski
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for:
>>> ,
>>> | int f(int n)
>>> | {
>>> | switch(n)
>>> | {
>>
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for:
>> ,
>> | int f(int n)
>> | {
>> | switch(n)
>> | {
>> | case 0: f1("0"); break;
>> | case 500: f2("500"); break;
>>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for:
> ,
> | int f(int n)
> | {
> | switch(n)
> | {
> | case 0: f1("0"); break;
> | case 500: f2("500"); break;
> | case 1000: f3("1000"); break;
> |
