On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 6:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 11/19/13 19:33, David Malcolm wrote:
FWIW, it looks like you attached the whitespace cleanup patch again,
rather than t
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/19/13 19:33, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, it looks like you attached the whitespace cleanup patch again,
>>> rather than the one you discuss above.
>>>
>>> For the archives, it lo
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/19/13 19:33, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>
>> FWIW, it looks like you attached the whitespace cleanup patch again,
>> rather than the one you discuss above.
>>
>> For the archives, it looks like your email is referring to r205074
>> (though tha
On 11/19/13 19:33, David Malcolm wrote:
FWIW, it looks like you attached the whitespace cleanup patch again,
rather than the one you discuss above.
For the archives, it looks like your email is referring to r205074
(though that itself seems to have some purely whitespace fixes, together
with th
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 18:55 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> So when we first started looking at the FSA/FSM optimization for
> coremark, I speculated that it could be done in the jump threader and
> that by doing so we'd see benefits in more general codes.
>
> This patch enables the code to allow multi
So when we first started looking at the FSA/FSM optimization for
coremark, I speculated that it could be done in the jump threader and
that by doing so we'd see benefits in more general codes.
This patch enables the code to allow multiple duplicated blocks on a
threading path. It won't catc
