On 10/20/14 05:42, Richard Biener wrote:
That was a conscious decision and the idea was that the caller should
do this via its lattice valueization function which could look like
tree
valueize (tree t)
{
if (TREE_CODE (t) == SSA_NAME
&& !has_single_use (t))
return NULL_TREE;
re
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > Richard Biener wrote:
> > > looks like
> > > RTL issues and/or IVOPTs issues?
> >
> > I should have posted the first diff between the compilers with
> > -fdump-tree-all:
> > that would expose the problem at its root.
>
> Looks
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
> > looks like
> > RTL issues and/or IVOPTs issues?
>
> I should have posted the first diff between the compilers with
> -fdump-tree-all:
> that would expose the problem at its root.
Looks like this is caused by the fwprop pass:
diff -u -r ./foo.i.08
On October 17, 2014 6:35:58 PM CEST, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>
>> > Richard Biener wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge
>> > > (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>
> > Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge
> > > (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think
> > > there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 15/10/14 14:00, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Any comments and reviews welcome (I don't think that
> > >> my
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
> >
> > On 15/10/14 14:00, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Any comments and reviews welcome (I don't think that
> >> my maintainership covers enough to simply check this in
> >> witho
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge
> > (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think
> > there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project
> > is sound there are technical qu
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 15/10/14 14:00, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any comments and reviews welcome (I don't think that
>> my maintainership covers enough to simply check this in
>> without approval).
>>
> Hi Richard,
>
> The match-and-simplify branch boot
On 16/10/14 21:43, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Richard Biener wrote:
I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge
(parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think
there was overall consensus that the idea behind the pro
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge
>> (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think
>> there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project
>> is sound there are techni
Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge
> (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think
> there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project
> is sound there are technical questions left for how the
> thing should look in the end
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 03:00:57PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> To re-iterate here (as I expect most people will only look
> at [0/n] patches ;)), the question is whether we are fine
> with making fold-const (thus fold_{unary,binary,ternary})
> not handle some cases it handles currently.
I'd say
On 15/10/14 14:00, Richard Biener wrote:
Any comments and reviews welcome (I don't think that
my maintainership covers enough to simply check this in
without approval).
Hi Richard,
The match-and-simplify branch bootstrapped successfully on
aarch64-none-linux-gnu FWIW.
Thanks,
Kyrill
I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge
(parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think
there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project
is sound there are technical questions left for how the
thing should look in the end. I've raised them in 3/n
which i
15 matches
Mail list logo
