On 4 November 2015 at 16:37, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:04:19PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 10/30/2015 07:03 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>> >+ i = tmp_i; <- Should be cleaned up
>>
>> Maybe reword as "Subsequent passes are expected to clean up the
>> extra mov
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:04:19PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 07:03 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> >+ i = tmp_i; <- Should be cleaned up
>
> Maybe reword as "Subsequent passes are expected to clean up the
> extra moves", otherwise it sounds like a TODO item.
>
> >+ read back
On 10/30/2015 07:03 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
+ i = tmp_i; <- Should be cleaned up
Maybe reword as "Subsequent passes are expected to clean up the extra
moves", otherwise it sounds like a TODO item.
+ read back in anotyher SET, as might occur in a swap idiom or
Typo.
+
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 07:23:28PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 04:53 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > One big question I have with this patch is how I ought to write a meaningful
> > cost model I've used. It seems like yet another misuse of RTX costs, and
> > another bit of stuff fo
