On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Dec
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
>>
Hi,
>>>
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>
>>> Hi,
>>> I split the patch into two and updated the test case.
>>> T
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I split the patch into two and updated the test case.
>> The patches pass bootstrap/tests on x86/x86_64, also pass test
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 11/25/13 02:22, bin.cheng wrote:
Hi,
I previously committed two patches lowering complex address expression for
>>
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/25/13 02:22, bin.cheng wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I previously committed two patches lowering complex address expression for
>>> IVOPT at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg0054
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/25/13 02:22, bin.cheng wrote:
Unless there's a PR for t
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 11/25/13 02:22, bin.cheng wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless there's a PR for this problem, I think this needs to wait.
>>
>> I agree. Btw, p
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/25/13 02:22, bin.cheng wrote:
>>
>> Unless there's a PR for this problem, I think this needs to wait.
>
> I agree. Btw, please split the patch.
Yes, I will get back to this after ent
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/25/13 02:22, bin.cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I previously committed two patches lowering complex address expression for
>> IVOPT at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg00546.html and
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg011
On 11/25/13 02:22, bin.cheng wrote:
Hi,
I previously committed two patches lowering complex address expression for
IVOPT at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg00546.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01103.html
When I bootstrapping GCC I found there were some peculiar
Hi,
I previously committed two patches lowering complex address expression for
IVOPT at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg00546.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01103.html
When I bootstrapping GCC I found there were some peculiar cases like
&MEM[ptr+CST] + , whic
12 matches
Mail list logo