On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:21:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > after much pondering about PR 55334 I came to conclusion that no nice
>> > fix to the regres
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:21:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > after much pondering about PR 55334 I came to conclusion that no nice
> > fix to the regression could be introduced in stage4. So for the sake
> > of the SP
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after much pondering about PR 55334 I came to conclusion that no nice
> fix to the regression could be introduced in stage4. So for the sake
> of the SPEC 200 benchmark I decided to cripple IPA-CP on restrict
> pointers to arrays so
Hi,
after much pondering about PR 55334 I came to conclusion that no nice
fix to the regression could be introduced in stage4. So for the sake
of the SPEC 200 benchmark I decided to cripple IPA-CP on restrict
pointers to arrays so that the restrict-ness of the memory references
which need to be v
