On Jul 24, 2012, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Thanks. I'm about to go on a trip for the rest of the week and I won't
> be online much, so I won't check them in now. I will when I get back
> home, so that I'll have a better chance of dealing with any fallout.
I've just installed the 3 patches. The
On Jul 24, 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/21/2012 03:25 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> PR debug/52983
>> * valtrack.c (dead_debug_insert_temp): Use cleanup_auto_inc_dec.
> Ok.
Thanks. I'm about to go on a trip for the rest of the week and I won't
be online much, so I won't check them in
On 07/21/2012 03:25 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> PR debug/52983
> * valtrack.c (dead_debug_insert_temp): Use cleanup_auto_inc_dec.
Ok.
r~
On Jul 17, 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 02:36 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00300.html
> ... except that post has patch 1 repeated as patch 3.
> The actual patch 3 is missing.
> That said, the first two patches are ok.
Thanks.
> P
On 07/17/2012 02:36 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00300.html
... except that post has patch 1 repeated as patch 3.
The actual patch 3 is missing.
That said, the first two patches are ok. Please repost #3.
r~
On Jun 13, 2012, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 3, 2012, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Here are the 3 patches that, together, are equivalent to the one posted
>> before, except for the visibility of cleanup_auto_inc_dec.
> Ping?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00300.html
Ping²?
On May 3, 2012, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Here are the 3 patches that, together, are equivalent to the one posted
> before, except for the visibility of cleanup_auto_inc_dec.
Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00300.html
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/
My recent patch for PR48866, that introduced dead_debug_insert_temp()
with DEBUG_TEMP_BEFORE_WITH_VALUE as a possibility for keeping
expressions about to be DCE'd, caused regressions on ppc because it
would take MEMs with autoinc addressing modes, which would be rejected
down the road.
This patch