On 07/12/2016 04:18 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
>
> On 07/08/2016 04:27 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 07/08/2016 02:54 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2016 01:59 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Gah, that's not right, that'll swap the numbers of kept/removed loops.
I think the rig
On 07/08/2016 04:27 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 07/08/2016 02:54 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 07/08/2016 01:59 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Gah, that's not right, that'll swap the numbers of kept/removed loops.
I think the right answer is simply
for (i = 0; i < n - IRA_MAX_LOOPS_NUM; i++)
Bern
On 07/08/2016 02:54 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/08/2016 01:59 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Gah, that's not right, that'll swap the numbers of kept/removed loops.
>>
>> I think the right answer is simply
>> for (i = 0; i < n - IRA_MAX_LOOPS_NUM; i++)
>>
>>
>> Bernd
>
> Thank you for the hel
On 07/08/2016 01:59 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
> Gah, that's not right, that'll swap the numbers of kept/removed loops.
>
> I think the right answer is simply
> for (i = 0; i < n - IRA_MAX_LOOPS_NUM; i++)
>
>
> Bernd
Thank you for the help, I've been testing the suggested change.
Martin
On 07/08/2016 01:52 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
int maxidx = MIN (IRA_MAX_LOOPS_NUM, n);
for (i = 0; i < maxidx; i++)
{
Gah, that's not right, that'll swap the numbers of kept/removed loops.
I think the right answer is simply
for (i = 0; i < n - IRA_MAX_LOOPS_NUM; i++)
Bernd
On 06/23/2016 12:56 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Following patch changes minimum of ira-max-loops-num to 1.
Having the minimum equal to zero does not make much sense.
Ready after it finishes reg&bootstrap on x86_64-linux?
Hmm, why wouldn't a number of zero make sense if you want try to have
all lo
PING^1
On 06/23/2016 12:56 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Following patch changes minimum of ira-max-loops-num to 1.
> Having the minimum equal to zero does not make much sense.
>
> Ready after it finishes reg&bootstrap on x86_64-linux?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
