on 2021/9/21 下午5:39, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:31 AM Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 21 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> on 2021/9/17 下午7:26, Martin Jambor wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Sorry that I failed to use 16 bit-f
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:31 AM Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 21 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > on 2021/9/17 下午7:26, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 17 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Sorry that I failed to use 16 bit-fields for this, I figured out that
> >>> the bit-f
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 21 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2021/9/17 下午7:26, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 17 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> Sorry that I failed to use 16 bit-fields for this, I figured out that
>>> the bit-fields can not be address-taken or passed as non-const reference.
>>> The g
Hi Martin,
on 2021/9/17 下午7:26, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 17 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2021/9/16 下午9:19, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 16 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
on 2021/9/15 下午8:51, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>
>
>
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 17 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2021/9/16 下午9:19, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 16 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> on 2021/9/15 下午8:51, Martin Jambor wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
[...]
> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.h b/gcc/ipa-fnsumm
Hi Martin,
on 2021/9/16 下午9:19, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 16 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks for the review comments!
>>
>> on 2021/9/15 下午8:51, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> since this is inlining-related, I would somewhat prefer Honza to have a
>>> look
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 16 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for the review comments!
>
> on 2021/9/15 下午8:51, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> since this is inlining-related, I would somewhat prefer Honza to have a
>> look too, but I have the following comments:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 08 2021,
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review comments!
on 2021/9/15 下午8:51, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since this is inlining-related, I would somewhat prefer Honza to have a
> look too, but I have the following comments:
>
> On Wed, Sep 08 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/ip
Hi,
since this is inlining-related, I would somewhat prefer Honza to have a
look too, but I have the following comments:
On Wed, Sep 08 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
[...]
> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.h b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.h
> index 78399b0b9bb..300b8da4507 100644
> --- a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.h
> +
Hi Bill,
on 2021/9/13 上午12:34, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Kewen,
>
> I'll leave the continued review of the back-end parts of this to Segher, but
> I do have one long-term comment. The rs6000_builtin_info[code].mask field
> that you're relying on is going away as part of the built-in function
>
Hi Kewen,
I'll leave the continued review of the back-end parts of this to Segher,
but I do have one long-term comment. The rs6000_builtin_info[code].mask
field that you're relying on is going away as part of the built-in
function rewrite. There will be a "bifattrs" field that replaces this
Hi!
Power ISA 2.07 (Power8) introduces transactional memory feature
but ISA3.1 (Power10) removes it. It exposes one troublesome
issue as PR102059 shows. Users define some function with
target pragma cpu=power10 then it calls one function with
attribute always_inline which inherits command line o
12 matches
Mail list logo
