On 10/30/2017 03:32 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/25/2017 06:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> My conclusion on the virtual dtor issue is that it's not strictly needed
>> right now.
>>
>> IIUC the issue is you could do something like
>>
>> base *foo = new derived ();
>> [ ... ]
>> delete foo;
>>
>> If
On 10/25/2017 06:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> My conclusion on the virtual dtor issue is that it's not strictly needed
> right now.
>
> IIUC the issue is you could do something like
>
> base *foo = new derived ();
> [ ... ]
> delete foo;
>
> If the base's destructor is not virtual and foo is a bas
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:20:38AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 03:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 10/24/2017 02:57 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 12:44 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but
> >>> for
> >>> the
On 10/26/2017 12:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On October 26, 2017 6:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
[ Big snip ]
>>> Both patches look ok to me though it would be nice to
>>> do the actual composition with a comment that the
>>> lattices might be moved here (if all workers became
>>> membe
On October 26, 2017 6:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 10/26/2017 03:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but
>for
>>> the substitution/replacements bits.
>>>
>>> In a couple pl
On 10/26/2017 03:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but for
>> the substitution/replacements bits.
>>
>> In a couple places the pass specific virtual functions are just wrappers
>> arou
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but for
> the substitution/replacements bits.
>
> In a couple places the pass specific virtual functions are just wrappers
> around existing functions. A good example of this is
> c
On 10/24/2017 03:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 02:57 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 12:44 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but
>>> for
>>> the substitution/replacements bits.
>>>
>>> In a couple places the pass s
On 10/24/2017 02:57 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 12:44 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but
>> for
>> the substitution/replacements bits.
>>
>> In a couple places the pass specific virtual functions are just
>> wrappers
>
On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 12:44 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but
> for
> the substitution/replacements bits.
>
> In a couple places the pass specific virtual functions are just
> wrappers
> around existing functions. A good example of this
This is similar to the introduction of the ssa_propagate_engine, but for
the substitution/replacements bits.
In a couple places the pass specific virtual functions are just wrappers
around existing functions. A good example of this is
ccp_folder::get_value. Many other routines in tree-ssa-ccp.c
11 matches
Mail list logo
