On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> I also use some patches posted by Matthew Gretton-Dann, which are
> still under discussion: I will open a PR, and attach these patches
> too. Is it OK?
Yes, that'd be all that's needed to reproduce the bug.
Ciao!
Steven
On 26 October 2012 00:47, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> The official wording from SPEC is that the sources are under the same
>> license as they are provided to them. It is the data files which are
>> under the SPEC license.
>
> Good. So the on
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> The official wording from SPEC is that the sources are under the same
> license as they are provided to them. It is the data files which are
> under the SPEC license.
Good. So the only things needed to reproduce the problem can be
shared: t
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> It looks like something is wrong with the CFG:
>>
>>|
>>19 (COLD)
>> / \
>>/ \
>> 20 (COLD) 21 (COLD)
>>\ /
>> \ /
>> 22 (HOT)
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> It looks like something is wrong with the CFG:
>>
>>|
>>19 (COLD)
>> / \
>>/ \
>> 20 (COLD) 21 (COLD)
>>\ /
>> \ /
>> 22 (HOT)
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> It looks like something is wrong with the CFG:
>
>|
>19 (COLD)
> / \
>/ \
> 20 (COLD) 21 (COLD)
>\ /
> \ /
> 22 (HOT)
So the partitioning is messed up, the above makes no sense. Where do
On 25 October 2012 16:10, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 22:07, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> On 24 October 2012 00:42, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Well, both of the
On 24 October 2012 22:07, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 24 October 2012 00:42, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Well, both of these functions appear to check that the 2 blocks to
m
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 00:42, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Well, both of these functions appear to check that the 2 blocks to
>>> merge belong to the same partition, so it should be OK.
>
On 24 October 2012 00:42, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Well, both of these functions appear to check that the 2 blocks to
>> merge belong to the same partition, so it should be OK.
>
> In your first email, you said if-convert was merging t
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Well, both of these functions appear to check that the 2 blocks to
> merge belong to the same partition, so it should be OK.
In your first email, you said if-convert was merging two blocks from
different partitions. can_merge_block_p() wo
On 23 October 2012 19:45, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Christophe wrote:
>> I think merge_blocks() should be modified to handle such cases;
>
> I think can_merge_blocks should be fixed. Blocks from different
> partitions should not be merged. See cfgrtl.c:rtl_can_merge_blocks and
> cfgrtl.c:cfg_layout
12 matches
Mail list logo
