On 07/25/2012 12:40 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> Thanks for the quick review! Excellent point about the array size. The
> attached revised patch follows your suggestion to limit the size.
>
> I only did this for the new field, as changing all the existing
> accessors to inline functions is mo
On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 09:59 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 09:13 AM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > Per Richard Henderson's suggestion
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01370.html), this patch
> > changes the IVOPTS and straight-line strength reduction passes to make
On 07/25/2012 09:13 AM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> Per Richard Henderson's suggestion
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01370.html), this patch
> changes the IVOPTS and straight-line strength reduction passes to make
> use of data computed by init_expmed. This required adding a new
Per Richard Henderson's suggestion
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01370.html), this patch
changes the IVOPTS and straight-line strength reduction passes to make
use of data computed by init_expmed. This required adding a new
convert_cost array in expmed to store the costs of convert
