Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-12 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 09:50 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Unfortunately this seems to be necessary

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-12 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 09:50 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Unfortunately this seems to be necessary

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-12 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt >> wrote: >> > >> > Unfortunately this seems to be necessary if I name the two passes >> > "reassoc1" and "reassoc2".  If I

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-12 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:49 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt >> wrote: >> > >> > Unfortunately this seems to be necessary if I name the two passes >> > "reassoc1" and "reassoc2".  If I

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-05 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately this seems to be necessary if I name the two passes > > "reassoc1" and "reassoc2". If I try to name both of them "reassoc" I > > get failures in other te

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 15:08 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, William J. Schmidt >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J.

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-04 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > I've revised my patch along these lines; see the new version below. > > While testing it I realized I could do a better job of reducing the > > numb

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-04 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 15:08 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 1

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-04 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, W

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-04 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > This is a r

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-04 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > This is a re-post of the patch I posted for comments in January to >> > address http://gcc

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-04-03 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is a re-post of the patch I posted for comments in January to > > address http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589. The patch > > modifies reass

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-03-28 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is a re-post of the patch I posted for comments in January to > > address http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589. The patch > > modifies reass

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR18589

2012-03-28 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > This is a re-post of the patch I posted for comments in January to > address http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589.  The patch > modifies reassociation to expose repeated factors from __builtin_pow* > calls, optimally