> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I was not aware of these bits (and yes, I agree it is non-sence this
> > being
> > duplicated everywhere). I will add UNREACHABLE there. What about rest of
> > the
> > change (i.e. adding the proper bits)?
>
> I suppose it's b
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hmm, I was not aware of these bits (and yes, I agree it is non-sence this
> being
> duplicated everywhere). I will add UNREACHABLE there. What about rest of the
> change (i.e. adding the proper bits)?
I suppose it's basically fine but add
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > this patch udpates go-frontend to deifine unreachable bultin I need for loop
> > and LTO optimizations. I also noticed that GO ignores existence of all
> > flags
> > except for CONST and thus I synchronized the flags with C FE variants
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> this patch udpates go-frontend to deifine unreachable bultin I need for loop
> and LTO optimizations. I also noticed that GO ignores existence of all flags
> except for CONST and thus I synchronized the flags with C FE variants.
I can't see
Hi,
this patch udpates go-frontend to deifine unreachable bultin I need for loop
and LTO optimizations. I also noticed that GO ignores existence of all flags
except for CONST and thus I synchronized the flags with C FE variants.
(I plan to use set_call_expr_flags in other FEs too)
Regtested x86_
