On 11/11/23 08:51, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
On 11/7/23 17:35, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I could have sworn that there was something that checked that passes
left edge aux fields clear, but it looks like I misremembered. So I
probably need to stick a clear_aux_for_edges ()
Jeff Law writes:
> On 11/7/23 17:35, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> I could have sworn that there was something that checked that passes
>> left edge aux fields clear, but it looks like I misremembered. So I
>> probably need to stick a clear_aux_for_edges () call above the first
>> main loop (for
On 11/7/23 17:35, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I could have sworn that there was something that checked that passes
left edge aux fields clear, but it looks like I misremembered. So I
probably need to stick a clear_aux_for_edges () call above the first
main loop (for 12/12) and keep the initiali
Jeff Law writes:
> On 11/5/23 11:49, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The pass used the edge aux field to record which mode change
>> should happen on the edge, with -1 meaning "none". It's more
>> convenient for later patches to leave aux zero for "none",
>> and use numbers based at 1 to record a cha
On 11/5/23 11:49, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The pass used the edge aux field to record which mode change
should happen on the edge, with -1 meaning "none". It's more
convenient for later patches to leave aux zero for "none",
and use numbers based at 1 to record a change.
gcc/
* mode-s
The pass used the edge aux field to record which mode change
should happen on the edge, with -1 meaning "none". It's more
convenient for later patches to leave aux zero for "none",
and use numbers based at 1 to record a change.
gcc/
* mode-switching.cc (commit_mode_sets): Use 1-based edge
