On 01/19/2017 02:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/17/2017 02:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This feels somewhat different, but still a hack.
I don't have strong suggestions on how to approach this, but what we've
got
here feels like a hack an
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 02:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This feels somewhat different, but still a hack.
>>>
>>> I don't have strong suggestions on how to approach this, but what we've
>>> got
>>> here feels like a hack and one prone to bitrot.
On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 09:36 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 02:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > This feels somewhat different, but still a hack.
> > >
> > > I don't have strong suggestions on how to approach this, but what
> > > we've got
> > > here feels like a hack and one prone
On 01/17/2017 02:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This feels somewhat different, but still a hack.
I don't have strong suggestions on how to approach this, but what we've got
here feels like a hack and one prone to bitrot.
All the above needs a bit of cleanup in the way we use (or not use) PROP_x
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/09/2017 07:38 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>> * passes.c: Include "insn-addr.h".
>> (should_skip_pass_p): Add logging. Update logic for running
>> "expand" to be compatible with both __GIMPLE and __
On 01/09/2017 07:38 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* passes.c: Include "insn-addr.h".
(should_skip_pass_p): Add logging. Update logic for running
"expand" to be compatible with both __GIMPLE and __RTL. Guard
property-provider override so it is only done
gcc/ChangeLog:
* passes.c: Include "insn-addr.h".
(should_skip_pass_p): Add logging. Update logic for running
"expand" to be compatible with both __GIMPLE and __RTL. Guard
property-provider override so it is only done for gimple passes.
Don't skip dfinit.
