On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >> >> > On Wed, 1
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Sorry for the late reply, but:
>> >> >>
>>
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sorry for the late reply, but:
> >> >>
> >> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> >
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry for the late reply, but:
>> >>
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>>
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry for the late reply, but:
> >>
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Currently we force peeling for
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the late reply, but:
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element overrun can occur
>> >> but for aligned acc
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply, but:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element overrun can occur
> >> but for aligned accesses we know that the loads won't
Sorry for the late reply, but:
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>
>> Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element overrun can occur
>> but for aligned accesses we know that the loads won't trap and thus
>> we can avoid this.
>>
>> Bootstrap and regte
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element overrun can occur
> but for aligned accesses we know that the loads won't trap and thus
> we can avoid this.
>
> Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (I expect
> some testsuite
11 matches
Mail list logo