Quoting Joern Rennecke :
Quoting Richard Sandiford :
1) As Richard B says, having "locked lengths" with the comment "care must
be taken to avoid cycles" doesn't sound like good design. So the
question was: without this, why would the length be going up and down
"arbitrarily", even thou
Quoting Richard Sandiford :
[responding because you kept me on cc:]
Joern Rennecke writes:
This uses the same interface as my previous patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00473.html ,
but I refined the algorithm for the get_insn_variants
mechanism to work properly with the rew
[responding because you kept me on cc:]
Joern Rennecke writes:
> This uses the same interface as my previous patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00473.html ,
> but I refined the algorithm for the get_insn_variants
> mechanism to work properly with the reworked ARC port -
> http:
This uses the same interface as my previous patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00473.html ,
but I refined the algorithm for the get_insn_variants
mechanism to work properly with the reworked ARC port -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01891.html -
the only user so far,