Bernd Schmidt writes:
> On 05/25/2011 08:33 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> +subpos2_ptr = &pos->xvecexp0s;
>> for (j = 0; j < XVECLEN (pattern, i); j++)
>>{
>> +subpos2 = next_position (subpos2_ptr, pos, POS_XVECEXP0, j);
>> sub = add_to_seque
On 05/25/2011 08:33 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> + subpos2_ptr = &pos->xvecexp0s;
> for (j = 0; j < XVECLEN (pattern, i); j++)
> {
> + subpos2 = next_position (subpos2_ptr, pos, POS_XVECEXP0, j);
> sub = add_to_sequence (XVECEXP (pattern, i,
On May 25, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> OK, I suppose I should back my objection up with a patch.
I like that... :-)
> Is it OK to remove the static forward declarations too?
I like reordering and removing static forwards in general, maybe I'm just weird.
Thanks for work, here'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
No one is listed to review genrecog.c. Could global reviewers comment
on my patch?
>>>
>>> FWIW, one argument against th
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> No one is listed to review genrecog.c. Could global reviewers comment
>>> on my patch?
>>
>> FWIW, one argument against this form of the change:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> No one is listed to review genrecog.c. Could global reviewers comment
>> on my patch?
>
> FWIW, one argument against this form of the change:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02159.html
>
What you s
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> No one is listed to review genrecog.c. Could global reviewers comment
> on my patch?
FWIW, one argument against this form of the change:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02159.html
Richard
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> wrote:
>>> we hit this limit trying to write the explicit semantics for a
>>> vec_interleave_evenv32qi.
>>>
>>> ;;(define_insn "vec_interleave_ev
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
> wrote:
>> we hit this limit trying to write the explicit semantics for a
>> vec_interleave_evenv32qi.
>>
>> ;;(define_insn "vec_interleave_evenv32qi"
>> ;; [(set (match_operand:V32QI 0 "register_op