On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 24/10/2019 17:10, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > On 24/10/2019 11:16, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> On 23/10/2019 15:21, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>> On 23/10/2019 09:28, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 21/10/2019 14
On 24/10/2019 17:10, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 24/10/2019 11:16, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 23/10/2019 15:21, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 23/10/2019 09:28, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 21/10/2019 14:24, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 21/10/2019 12:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
O
On 24/10/2019 11:16, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 23/10/2019 15:21, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 23/10/2019 09:28, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 21/10/2019 14:24, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 21/10/2019 12:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18/10/2019 21:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Each patc
On 23/10/2019 15:21, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 23/10/2019 09:28, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 21/10/2019 14:24, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 21/10/2019 12:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18/10/2019 21:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Each patch should produce a working compiler (it did w
On 23/10/2019 09:28, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 21/10/2019 14:24, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 21/10/2019 12:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18/10/2019 21:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Each patch should produce a working compiler (it did when it was
originally written), though since the patch
On 21/10/2019 14:24, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 21/10/2019 12:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18/10/2019 21:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Each patch should produce a working compiler (it did when it was
originally written), though since the patch set has been re-ordered
slightly there is a
On 21/10/2019 12:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18/10/2019 21:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Each patch should produce a working compiler (it did when it was
originally written), though since the patch set has been re-ordered
slightly there is a possibility that some of the intermediate steps
may ha
On 18/10/2019 21:48, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Each patch should produce a working compiler (it did when it was
originally written), though since the patch set has been re-ordered
slightly there is a possibility that some of the intermediate steps
may have missing test updates that are only cleaned
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:21:21PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 19/10/2019 17:31, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > I have a bunch of testcases from when I did something similar for PowerPC
> > that I wanted to test... But I cannot get your series to apply. Do you
> > have a git repo I
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 8:49 PM Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
>
> This series of patches rewrites all the DImode arithmetic patterns for
> the Arm backend when compiling for Arm or Thumb2 to split the
> operations during expand (the thumb1 code is unchanged and cannot
> benefit from early splitting as
On 19/10/2019 17:31, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>> This series of patches rewrites all the DImode arithmetic patterns for
>> the Arm backend when compiling for Arm or Thumb2 to split the
>> operations during expa
Hi Richard,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:31PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> This series of patches rewrites all the DImode arithmetic patterns for
> the Arm backend when compiling for Arm or Thumb2 to split the
> operations during expand (the thumb1 code is unchanged and cannot
> benefit fr
This series of patches rewrites all the DImode arithmetic patterns for
the Arm backend when compiling for Arm or Thumb2 to split the
operations during expand (the thumb1 code is unchanged and cannot
benefit from early splitting as we are unable to expose the carry
flag).
This has a number of bene
13 matches
Mail list logo
