On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Done.
> jeff
Thanks!
On 02/24/15 22:47, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
Sterling,
I was referring Jeff's patch, do you say that his patch is not the proper
fix?
No, I was thinking of Chen's patch. Jeff's patch is the right one.
Jeff, your patch is OK for
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
>
> Sterling,
>
> I was referring Jeff's patch, do you say that his patch is not the proper
> fix?
No, I was thinking of Chen's patch. Jeff's patch is the right one.
Jeff, your patch is OK for xtensa. Do you mind checking it in?
Sterling,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:36 AM, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> You can tackle them in any order you wish. However, I suspect fixing the
>>> xtensa backend may be easie
On 2/25/15 07:36, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> You can tackle them in any order you wish. However, I suspect fixing the
>>> xtensa backend may be easier. I don't h
On 2/25/15 03:22, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/24/15 10:29, Chen Gang S wrote:
>>
>> So for me, I shall let genrecog report error instead of warning when it
>> find this issue, next.
> Yes, I think an error would be appropriate here. That way nobody has to
> debug same issue you just did in find_reloa
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> You can tackle them in any order you wish. However, I suspect fixing the
>> xtensa backend may be easier. I don't have any good way to test xtensa, but
>> something like the att
On 02/24/15 15:05, Max Filippov wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
You can tackle them in any order you wish. However, I suspect fixing the
xtensa backend may be easier. I don't have any good way to test xtensa, but
something like the attached patch for the xtensa p
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> You can tackle them in any order you wish. However, I suspect fixing the
> xtensa backend may be easier. I don't have any good way to test xtensa, but
> something like the attached patch for the xtensa port should be sufficient.
I can co
On 02/24/15 10:29, Chen Gang S wrote:
On 2/25/15 01:03, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Chen Gang S wrote:
- After this patch, it can continue compiling, but can we be sure that
it always generates correct code for execution?
After this patch, it
On 2/25/15 01:03, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Chen Gang S wrote:
>>
>> - After this patch, it can continue compiling, but can we be sure that
>>it always generates correct code for execution?
>
> After this patch, it should be no worse than it was-
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Chen Gang S wrote:
>
> - After this patch, it can continue compiling, but can we be sure that
>it always generates correct code for execution?
After this patch, it should be no worse than it was--lucky.
Someone is working on fixing the underlying xtensa patt
On 2/24/15 23:54, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/23/15 18:33, Chen Gang S wrote:
>> OK, thanks. I shall try to finish within this month (although I am
>> not quite sure whether I can finish on time).
> No problem. Any contribution you can make in this area is appreciated.
>
OK, thanks.
>> OK, thanks.
On 02/23/15 18:33, Chen Gang S wrote:
On 2/24/15 07:14, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/23/15 16:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Which violate the rule for matching constraints.
...and should never have worked at all...
Yup. It's only been fairly recently that we started statically
checking MD files in
On 2/24/15 07:14, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/23/15 16:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Which violate the rule for matching constraints.
>>
>> ...and should never have worked at all...
> Yup. It's only been fairly recently that we started statically checking MD
> files in any significant way --
On 02/23/15 16:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Which violate the rule for matching constraints.
...and should never have worked at all...
Yup. It's only been fairly recently that we started statically checking
MD files in any significant way -- we've still got a long way to go I'm
sure.
I
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/22/15 02:02, Chen Gang S wrote:
>>
>> It is for Bug65117, after this fix, ".i" file can be passed compiling.
>>
>>- 'this_alternative_win' is not initialized before use it: for the
>> first looping 0, it initializes 'this_alternativ
On 02/22/15 02:02, Chen Gang S wrote:
It is for Bug65117, after this fix, ".i" file can be passed compiling.
- 'this_alternative_win' is not initialized before use it: for the
first looping 0, it initializes 'this_alternative_win[0]', but
'did_match' may use 'this_alternative_win[2]
It is for Bug65117, after this fix, ".i" file can be passed compiling.
- 'this_alternative_win' is not initialized before use it: for the
first looping 0, it initializes 'this_alternative_win[0]', but
'did_match' may use 'this_alternative_win[2]'.
- 'this_alternative' may be not initi
19 matches
Mail list logo
