On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:42:34AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:16:44AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wro
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:42:34AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:16:44AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:59:48AM +0100, Uros Bi
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:16:44AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:59:48AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> >> I don't like the fact that *dynamic_check is set to
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:16:44AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:59:48AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >> I don't like the fact that *dynamic_check is set to max (which is 0
> >> with your testcase) when recursion avo
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:59:48AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> I don't like the fact that *dynamic_check is set to max (which is 0
>> with your testcase) when recursion avoidance code already set it to
>> "something reasonable", together wit
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:59:48AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I don't like the fact that *dynamic_check is set to max (which is 0
> with your testcase) when recursion avoidance code already set it to
> "something reasonable", together with loop_1_byte alg. What do you
> think about attached (light
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Before my recent decide_alg change, *dynamic_check == -1 was indeed
> guaranteed, because any_alg_usable_p doesn't depend on the arguments of
> decide_alg that might change during recursive call, so we'd only recurse if
> it wouldn't s
Hi!
Before my recent decide_alg change, *dynamic_check == -1 was indeed
guaranteed, because any_alg_usable_p doesn't depend on the arguments of
decide_alg that might change during recursive call, so we'd only recurse if
it wouldn't set *dynamic_check. But, if we give up because we'd otherwise
rec
