On 12/5/22 17:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:54:09PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Id actually prefer to avoid passing the tree code around... we're trying to
avoid that sort of thing even thoug
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:54:09PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > Id actually prefer to avoid passing the tree code around... we're trying to
> > avoid that sort of thing even though Aldy temporarily introduced them
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Id actually prefer to avoid passing the tree code around... we're trying to
> avoid that sort of thing even though Aldy temporarily introduced them to
> range-ops. Hes suppose to remove that next stage 1 :-P Ideally anything
> "spe
On 12/5/22 10:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 02:29:36PM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
So like this for multiplication op1/2_range if it passes bootstrap/regtest?
For division I'll need to go to a drawing board...
Sure, looks good to me.
Ulrich just filed PR107972, so in
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 02:29:36PM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > So like this for multiplication op1/2_range if it passes bootstrap/regtest?
> > For division I'll need to go to a drawing board...
>
> Sure, looks good to me.
Ulrich just filed PR107972, so in the light of that PR the follow
