On 23/10/15 16:27, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Jakub and Tom!
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:37:26 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01/10/15 14:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:46:01PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
this patch adds initialization in zero_iter_bb of counters introduced in
ex
Hi Jakub and Tom!
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:37:26 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 01/10/15 14:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:46:01PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >> this patch adds initialization in zero_iter_bb of counters introduced in
> >> expand_omp_for_init_counts.
> >>
On 01/10/15 14:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:46:01PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
this patch adds initialization in zero_iter_bb of counters introduced in
expand_omp_for_init_counts.
This removes the need to set TREE_NO_WARNING on those counters.
Why do you think it is a g
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:46:01PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> this patch adds initialization in zero_iter_bb of counters introduced in
> expand_omp_for_init_counts.
>
> This removes the need to set TREE_NO_WARNING on those counters.
Why do you think it is a good idea? I'd be afraid it slows th
Hi,
this patch adds initialization in zero_iter_bb of counters introduced in
expand_omp_for_init_counts.
This removes the need to set TREE_NO_WARNING on those counters.
Build on x86_64 and reg-tested with gomp.exp and target-libgomp c.exp.
OK for trunk, if bootstrap and reg-test on x86_64 su
