Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 04:50:56PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:48:11PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > So yeah, patch withdrawn. This on one hand is proof we do want to make
>> >> > such a change,
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 04:50:56PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:48:11PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > So yeah, patch withdrawn. This on one hand is proof we do want to make
> >> > such a change, but on the other hand shows it ne
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:48:11PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > So yeah, patch withdrawn. This on one hand is proof we do want to make
>> > such a change, but on the other hand shows it needs more preparatory
>> > steps.
>>
>> I wonder if it makes sense to provi
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:48:11PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > So yeah, patch withdrawn. This on one hand is proof we do want to make
> > such a change, but on the other hand shows it needs more preparatory
> > steps.
>
> I wonder if it makes sense to provide ports a means to opt-in into
> t
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:27 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 09:05:57AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 12:05 AM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In theory we could have a split condition not inclusive of the insn
> > > condition in the pas
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 09:05:57AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 12:05 AM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > In theory we could have a split condition not inclusive of the insn
> > condition in the past. That never was a good idea, the code does not do
> > what a non-susp
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 12:05 AM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> In theory we could have a split condition not inclusive of the insn
> condition in the past. That never was a good idea, the code does not do
> what a non-suspicious reader would think it does. But it leads to more
> serious problems
In theory we could have a split condition not inclusive of the insn
condition in the past. That never was a good idea, the code does not do
what a non-suspicious reader would think it does. But it leads to more
serious problems together with iterators: if the split condition (as
written) does not
