On April 1, 2016 5:18:10 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:36:49AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>> > Sometimes people write loops that they do not want optimized away,
>even
>> > when the compiler c
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 08:32:28AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > Sometimes people write loops that they do not want optimized away, even
> > when the compiler can replace those loops by a simple expression (or
> > nothing). For such
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Sometimes people write loops that they do not want optimized away, even
> when the compiler can replace those loops by a simple expression (or
> nothing). For such people, this patch adds a compiler option.
The Linux kernel has a nice
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:36:49AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > Sometimes people write loops that they do not want optimized away, even
> > when the compiler can replace those loops by a simple expression (or
> > nothing). For such
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Sometimes people write loops that they do not want optimized away, even
> when the compiler can replace those loops by a simple expression (or
> nothing). For such people, this patch adds a compiler option.
>
> Bootstrapped on powerpc64-
Sometimes people write loops that they do not want optimized away, even
when the compiler can replace those loops by a simple expression (or
nothing). For such people, this patch adds a compiler option.
Bootstrapped on powerpc64-linux; regression check still in progress
(with Init(1) to actually
