On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Patrick Palka
wro
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
Hi,
The fix for PR38615 indirectly broke the promo
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The fix for PR38615 indirectly broke the promotion of const local arrays
>>> to static storage in many cases.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The fix for PR38615 indirectly broke the promotion of const local arrays
>> to static storage in many cases. The commit in question, r143570, made
>> it so that only arrays
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The fix for PR38615 indirectly broke the promotion of const local arrays
> to static storage in many cases. The commit in question, r143570, made
> it so that only arrays that don't potentially escape from the scope in
> which they'r
Hi,
The fix for PR38615 indirectly broke the promotion of const local arrays
to static storage in many cases. The commit in question, r143570, made
it so that only arrays that don't potentially escape from the scope in
which they're defined (i.e. arrays for which TREE_ADDRESSABLE is 0) are
candid
