On 01/27/2015 12:11 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov writes:
>> On 01/27/2015 09:08 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Yeah, but in practice that's only ever going to be a partial transition.
>>> Many port maintainers won't look at this, so we'll have to support both
>>> versions inde
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 01/27/2015 09:08 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Yeah, but in practice that's only ever going to be a partial transition.
>> Many port maintainers won't look at this, so we'll have to support both
>> versions indefinitely, even if the new behaviour turns out to be the
On 01/27/2015 09:08 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> Yeah, but in practice that's only ever going to be a partial transition.
> Many port maintainers won't look at this, so we'll have to support both
> versions indefinitely, even if the new behaviour turns out to be the
> best for all cases.
>
> I
On 01/27/15 07:08, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Yeah, but in practice that's only ever going to be a partial transition.
Many port maintainers won't look at this, so we'll have to support both
versions indefinitely, even if the new behaviour turns out to be the
best for all cases.
Yes, most likely.
Jeff Law writes:
> On 01/24/15 04:29, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. I expect in practice most people who used "?" and "!" attached
>> them to a particular operand for a reason. From a quick scan through
>> 386.exp it looked like almost all uses would either want this behaviour
>> or would
On 01/24/15 04:29, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Yeah. I expect in practice most people who used "?" and "!" attached
them to a particular operand for a reason. From a quick scan through
386.exp it looked like almost all uses would either want this behaviour
or wouldn't care. An interesting except
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>> On 01/14/15 16:52, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>>The problem of unexpected code generation is discussed on
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
>>>
>>>The following patch introduces 2 new co
Jeff Law writes:
> On 01/14/15 16:52, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>The problem of unexpected code generation is discussed on
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
>>
>>The following patch introduces 2 new constraints '^' and '$' which
>> are analogous to '?' and '!' but di
On 01/14/15 16:52, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The problem of unexpected code generation is discussed on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
The following patch introduces 2 new constraints '^' and '$' which
are analogous to '?' and '!' but disfavor given alternative when *the
The problem of unexpected code generation is discussed on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
The following patch introduces 2 new constraints '^' and '$' which
are analogous to '?' and '!' but disfavor given alternative when *the
operand with the new constraint* needs a re
10 matches
Mail list logo
