+jakub who manages GCC 4.8 releases.
David
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
> Yes, I think so.
>
> Regards,
> Wei.
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Should the patch be ported to in 48 branch?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1
Yes, I think so.
Regards,
Wei.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Should the patch be ported to in 48 branch?
>
> thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov
> wrote:
>> On 13-06-19 1:23 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
>>>
>>> Ping.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 1
Should the patch be ported to in 48 branch?
thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 13-06-19 1:23 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
>>
>> Ping.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
>>>
>>
On 13-06-19 1:23 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
Ping.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
equivalent with a mem, lowered its mem_cost in scan_one_insn, set
NO_REGS to its rclass
Ping.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
>
> pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
> equivalent with a mem, lowered its mem_cost in scan_one_insn, set
> NO_REGS to its rclass, but didn't consider the
The testcase is attached.
Thanks,
Wei.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
>>
>> pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
>> equivalent with a mem, l
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
>
> pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
> equivalent with a mem, lowered its mem_cost in scan_one_insn, set
> NO_REGS to its rclass, but didn't consider the reg was
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
equivalent with a mem, lowered its mem_cost in scan_one_insn, set
NO_REGS to its rclass, but didn't consider the reg was used in
paradoxical subreg which prevented the reg from bei