On 5/3/24 01:26, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:59:24AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> This is no logic change (but technically still a functional change).
> Where are 1/3 and 2/3? Or are those unrelated?
Yes they were unrelated (minor doc fixes) hence didn't want to sp
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 02:38:12PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 5/2/24 12:59 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> >This is no logic change (but technically still a functional change).
> >
> >Ran into this when stepping thru combine code.
> >@newpat has some random garbage for a bit until it is actually s
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:59:24AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> This is no logic change (but technically still a functional change).
Where are 1/3 and 2/3? Or are those unrelated? Please don't make
series like that.
> Ran into this when stepping thru combine code.
> @newpat has some random garb
On 5/2/24 13:38, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 5/2/24 12:59 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> This is no logic change (but technically still a functional change).
>>
>> Ran into this when stepping thru combine code.
>> @newpat has some random garbage for a bit until it is actually set.
>> With the fix it rema
On 5/2/24 12:59 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
This is no logic change (but technically still a functional change).
Ran into this when stepping thru combine code.
@newpat has some random garbage for a bit until it is actually set.
With the fix it remains 0 until actually set.
gcc/ChangeLog:
This is no logic change (but technically still a functional change).
Ran into this when stepping thru combine code.
@newpat has some random garbage for a bit until it is actually set.
With the fix it remains 0 until actually set.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* combine.cc (try_combine): Initialize newpa
