On 11/14/2011 11:46 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>> There are a couple of instances in which the paper doesn't cover the
>> handling of memory_model_consume, and I made a best guess. These
>> are indicated by /* ??? */ markers. I would
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> There are a couple of instances in which the paper doesn't cover the
> handling of memory_model_consume, and I made a best guess. These
> are indicated by /* ??? */ markers. I would be obliged if someone
> could verify what's supposed
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The first patch removes two avoidable warnings in rs6000.md.
> It seems like we could avoid many more of the remaining, but
> those are harder; this one was obvious.
>
> The second patch is a build error. It has appeared on this
> list
Well, most of it.
The first patch removes two avoidable warnings in rs6000.md.
It seems like we could avoid many more of the remaining, but
those are harder; this one was obvious.
The second patch is a build error. It has appeared on this
list previously, but not yet applied.
The third implemen
