On 18/05/15 11:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
When using the short Thumb2 IT blocks we want to also restrict ifcvt so that it
will not end up generating a number of back-to-back cond_execs
that will later end up being back to back single-instruction IT blocks.
Branching over them should b
On 27/05/15 11:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
Here is the rebased (and retested) patch after Christian's series.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 18/05/15 11:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
When using the short Thumb2 IT blocks we want to also restrict ifcvt so that it
will not end up generating a nu
Ping.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 04/06/15 16:59, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02405.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 27/05/15 11:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
Here is the rebased (and retested) patch after Christian's series.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 18/05/15 11:26, Ky
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02405.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 27/05/15 11:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
Here is the rebased (and retested) patch after Christian's series.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 18/05/15 11:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
When using the short Thumb2 IT bloc
Ping.
Here is the rebased (and retested) patch after Christian's series.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 18/05/15 11:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
When using the short Thumb2 IT blocks we want to also restrict ifcvt so that it
will not end up generating a number of back-to-back cond_execs
that will la
Hi all,
When using the short Thumb2 IT blocks we want to also restrict ifcvt so that it
will not end up generating a number of back-to-back cond_execs
that will later end up being back to back single-instruction IT blocks.
Branching over them should be a better choice.
This patch implements th
