Hi,
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > Ping? Rebootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
>
> Zdenek, can you have a look here? I think the patch is reasonable, but
> you should have a better idea ;)
I do not understand the patch very well. In the comment
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Ping? Rebootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Zdenek, can you have a look here? I think the patch is reasonable, but
you should have a better idea ;)
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at
Ping? Rebootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> The problem with these two bug reports is that the cfgloop does not do
> a good job for disambiguating some loops. This patch rewrites
> find_subloop_latc
The problem with these two bug reports is that the cfgloop does not do
a good job for disambiguating some loops. This patch rewrites
find_subloop_latch_edge_by_ivs to be better. It is able to detect
much more loops and gets the ones which are referenced in PR 50971 and
PR 35629. It does make sur