Jeff Law wrote:
The question I have is why this differs from the effects of patch #5.
That would seem to indicate that there's things we're not getting into
the candidate tables with this approach?!?
I'll answer this first, as I think (Richard and) Martin have identified enough
other issues
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:16PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> This makes SRA replace loads of records/arrays from constant pool entries,
> with elementwise assignments of the constant values, hence, overcoming the
> fundamental problem in PR/63679.
>
> As a first pass, the approach I took
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 05:06 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> This makes SRA replace loads of records/arrays from constant pool entries,
>> with elementwise assignments of the constant values, hence, overcoming the
>> fundamental problem in PR/63679.
>>
>>
On 08/25/2015 05:06 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This makes SRA replace loads of records/arrays from constant pool entries,
with elementwise assignments of the constant values, hence, overcoming the
fundamental problem in PR/63679.
As a first pass, the approach I took was to look for constant-pool l
This makes SRA replace loads of records/arrays from constant pool entries,
with elementwise assignments of the constant values, hence, overcoming the
fundamental problem in PR/63679.
As a first pass, the approach I took was to look for constant-pool loads as
we scanned through other accesses, and
