On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> Please consider this as a reminder to review the patch posted at
>> following link:-
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00765.html
>
> What is this good for?
>
> Why are you changing the semantics of an existing, global constr
Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please consider this as a reminder to review the patch posted at
> following link:-
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00765.html
What is this good for?
Why are you changing the semantics of an existing, global constraint?
Naveen Hurugalawadi wrote:
> The definition of constraint 'X' allows all operands.
> `X' - Any operand whatsoever is allowed.
> However, invalid memory operands should not be valid input for 'X'.
>
> Please find attached the patch "X_constraint.patch" which ignores=20
> invalid memory operands in
Hi,
Please consider this as a reminder to review the patch posted at
following link:-
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00765.html
Please review the patch and let me know if its okay?
Thanks & Regards,
Naveen.H.S
Hi,
Please consider this as a reminder to review the patch posted at
following link:-
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00765.html
Please review the patch and let me know if its okay?
Thanks & Regards,
Naveen.H.S
Hi,
The definition of constraint 'X' allows all operands.
`X' - Any operand whatsoever is allowed.
However, invalid memory operands should not be valid input for 'X'.
Please find attached the patch "X_constraint.patch" which ignores
invalid memory operands in constraint 'X'.
Fixes the ICE gcc.d
