On 11/16/21 08:48, Uecker, Martin wrote:
Am Montag, den 08.11.2021, 19:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Uecker:
Am Montag, den 08.11.2021, 12:13 -0500 schrieb Jason Merrill:
On 11/7/21 01:40, Uecker, Martin wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2021, 10:18 -0400 schrieb Jason Merrill:
...
Thank you! I made
Am Montag, den 08.11.2021, 19:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Uecker:
> Am Montag, den 08.11.2021, 12:13 -0500 schrieb Jason Merrill:
> > On 11/7/21 01:40, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2021, 10:18 -0400 schrieb Jason Merrill:
>
> ...
>
> > > Thank you! I made these changes and ran
>
Am Montag, den 08.11.2021, 12:13 -0500 schrieb Jason Merrill:
> On 11/7/21 01:40, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2021, 10:18 -0400 schrieb Jason Merrill:
...
> >
> > Thank you! I made these changes and ran
> > bootstrap and tests again.
>
> Hmm, it doesn't look like you made t
On 11/7/21 01:40, Uecker, Martin wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2021, 10:18 -0400 schrieb Jason Merrill:
On 10/31/21 05:22, Uecker, Martin wrote:
Hi Jason,
here is the fourth version of the patch.
I followed your suggestion and now make this
transformation sooner in pointer_int_sum.
I also add
Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2021, 10:18 -0400 schrieb Jason Merrill:
> On 10/31/21 05:22, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > here is the fourth version of the patch.
> >
> > I followed your suggestion and now make this
> > transformation sooner in pointer_int_sum.
> > I also added a check to
On 10/31/21 05:22, Uecker, Martin wrote:
Hi Jason,
here is the fourth version of the patch.
I followed your suggestion and now make this
transformation sooner in pointer_int_sum.
I also added a check to only do this
transformation when the pointer is not a
VAR_DECL, which avoids it in the most
Hi Jason,
here is the fourth version of the patch.
I followed your suggestion and now make this
transformation sooner in pointer_int_sum.
I also added a check to only do this
transformation when the pointer is not a
VAR_DECL, which avoids it in the most
common cases where it is not necessary.
L
On 10/20/21 01:58, Uecker, Martin wrote:
Am Montag, den 18.10.2021, 12:35 -0400 schrieb Jason Merrill:
On 10/17/21 09:52, Uecker, Martin wrote:
Here is the 4th version of the patch. I tried to implement
Jason's suggestion and this also fixes the problem. But
I am not sure I understand the cond
Am Montag, den 18.10.2021, 12:35 -0400 schrieb Jason Merrill:
> On 10/17/21 09:52, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> >
> > Here is the 4th version of the patch. I tried to implement
> > Jason's suggestion and this also fixes the problem. But
> > I am not sure I understand the condition on
> > the TREE_SIDE_
On 10/17/21 09:52, Uecker, Martin wrote:
Here is the 4th version of the patch. I tried to implement
Jason's suggestion and this also fixes the problem. But
I am not sure I understand the condition on
the TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS ...
Checking TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS filters out many trivial cases that we d
Here is the 4th version of the patch. I tried to implement
Jason's suggestion and this also fixes the problem. But
I am not sure I understand the condition on
the TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS ...
And there is now another problem:
c_finish_omp_for in c-family/c-omp.c does not seem
to understand the expre
11 matches
Mail list logo