On 11/04/2013 02:26 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> The following patch fixes
>>
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58967
>>
>> The removed code is too old. To be honest, I even don't remember why I
>> added this. LRA has been
On 11/4/2013 2:23 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The following patch fixes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58967
The removed code is too old. To be honest, I even don't remember why I
added this. LRA has been changed a lot since this change and now it
works fine without it.
Whe
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following patch fixes
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58967
>
> The removed code is too old. To be honest, I even don't remember why I
> added this. LRA has been changed a lot since this change and now it
> works fi
The following patch fixes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58967
The removed code is too old. To be honest, I even don't remember why I
added this. LRA has been changed a lot since this change and now it
works fine without it.
There is no test for this case as it is too big.
The