Re: Ping / update: Re: RFA: hookize ADJUST_INSN_LENGTH

2012-11-24 Thread Joern Rennecke
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

Re: Ping / update: Re: RFA: hookize ADJUST_INSN_LENGTH

2012-11-24 Thread Joern Rennecke
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

Re: Ping / update: Re: RFA: hookize ADJUST_INSN_LENGTH

2012-11-24 Thread 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 reworked ARC port - > http:

Ping / update: Re: RFA: hookize ADJUST_INSN_LENGTH

2012-11-22 Thread Joern Rennecke
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,