On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>> You want is_gimple_reg () instead of is_gimple_non_addressable () as you
>> can't simply make something addressable at this point.
>> is_gimple_non_addressable
>> looks like a weird redundant predicate to me - it's only used once and its
>
You want is_gimple_reg () instead of is_gimple_non_addressable () as you
can't simply make something addressable at this point.
is_gimple_non_addressable
looks like a weird redundant predicate to me - it's only used once and its use
should be replaced (and the predicate removed).
Ok, thanks.
On 01/04/12 17:16, Patrick Marlier wrote:
On 01/04/2012 01:20 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I fixed this PR, and then it got reopened because the testcase triggered
a different problem on Alpha, Mips, and other architectures. The problem
is actually totally different than the previous fix for 51472,
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> I fixed this PR, and then it got reopened because the testcase triggered a
> different problem on Alpha, Mips, and other architectures. The problem is
> actually totally different than the previous fix for 51472, and has nothing
> to do with
On 01/04/2012 01:20 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I fixed this PR, and then it got reopened because the testcase triggered
a different problem on Alpha, Mips, and other architectures. The problem
is actually totally different than the previous fix for 51472, and has
nothing to do with --param tm-max-
On 01/05/2012 05:20 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> PR middle-end/51472
> * trans-mem.c (expand_assign_tm): Handle TM_MEMMOVE loads correctly.
> testsuite/
> PR middle-end/51472
> * gcc.dg/tm/memopt-6.c: Adjust regexp.
Ok.
r~
On 01/04/2012 01:20 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
The attached patch fixes the ICE on alpha-linux-gnu as tested with a
cross-cc1 build.
Note that it was also failing with i686/linux and the patch fixes the ICE.
Patrick.
I fixed this PR, and then it got reopened because the testcase triggered
a different problem on Alpha, Mips, and other architectures. The
problem is actually totally different than the previous fix for 51472,
and has nothing to do with --param tm-max-aggregate-size.
This problem here is that
