On Wednesday 27 April 2005 19:15, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 08:47 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > > Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
> >
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 08:47 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
> > When we have a tree combiner I would expect TER to disappear.
>
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 09:35 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:36:41AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm going to look into why we're seeing so many *& expressions
> > during TER.
>
> We have an open PR for this. We don't propagate the & when
> it's not a const
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:36:41AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> Anyway, I'm going to look into why we're seeing so many *& expressions
> during TER.
We have an open PR for this. We don't propagate the & when
it's not a constant. Like in &x->y.
r~
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
> When we have a tree combiner I would expect TER to disappear.
Or if tree expansion were rewritten. One of the many things still
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
When we have a tree combiner I would expect TER to disappear.
jeff
Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
zw
