On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 20 Jun 2012, at 09:23, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 19 Jun 2012, at 22:41, Mike Stump wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Jun 1
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20 Jun 2012, at 09:23, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 19 Jun 2012, at 22:41, Mike Stump wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2012, at 13
Hi,
On 20 Jun 2012, at 09:23, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2012, at 22:41, Mike Stump wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 19 Jun 2012, at 13:53, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > > Richard Guenther writes:
> > > > We are too eager to bump alignment of some decls when vectorizing.
> > > > The fix is to not bump alignment of decls the user explicitely
> > > > aligned or t
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> On 19 Jun 2012, at 22:41, Mike Stump wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >> On 19 Jun 2012, at 13:53, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Richard Guenther wri
On 19 Jun 2012, at 22:41, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> On 19 Jun 2012, at 13:53, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>> We are too eager to bump alignment of some decl
On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:53 AM, domi...@lps.ens.fr (Dominique Dhumieres) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
We are too eager to bump alignment of some decls when vectorizing.
The fix is to not bump alignment of decls the user explicitely
>
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2012, at 13:53, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
Richard Guenther writes:
> We are too eager to bump alignment of some decls when vectorizing.
> The fix is to not bump align
On 19 Jun 2012, at 13:53, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
We are too eager to bump alignment of some decls when vectorizing.
The fix is to not bump alignment of decls the user explicitely
aligned or that ar
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Richard Guenther writes:
> > > We are too eager to bump alignment of some decls when vectorizing.
> > > The fix is to not bump alignment of decls the user explicitely
> > > aligned or that are used in an unknown way.
> >
> > I thought attribute(
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
> > We are too eager to bump alignment of some decls when vectorizing.
> > The fix is to not bump alignment of decls the user explicitely
> > aligned or that are used in an unknown way.
>
> I thought attribute((__aligned__)
Richard Guenther writes:
> We are too eager to bump alignment of some decls when vectorizing.
> The fix is to not bump alignment of decls the user explicitely
> aligned or that are used in an unknown way.
I thought attribute((__aligned__)) only set a minimum alignment
for variables? Most usees I
We are too eager to bump alignment of some decls when vectorizing.
The fix is to not bump alignment of decls the user explicitely
aligned or that are used in an unknown way.
Bootstrapped and tested on i686-darwin9 and x86_64-apple-darwin10
and powerpc-apple-darwin9 by darwin folks, applied.
Rich
13 matches
Mail list logo
