Hi!
On 2019-10-30T12:19:28+0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> ..., and when building gcc-9-branch with
>> '--enable-checking=yes,extra,rtl' (apparently I'm the only one doing
>> that, huh?), runs into the following (at least I suppose
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> ..., and when building gcc-9-branch with
> '--enable-checking=yes,extra,rtl' (apparently I'm the only one doing
> that, huh?), runs into the following (at least I suppose that's what's
I'm testing release branches with
../configure
Hi!
On 2019-05-06T11:36:22+0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Fri, 3 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> I am testing the following patch [...]
... which apparently also got backported to gcc-9-branch eventually...
>>
On Sat, 4 May 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Fri, 3 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I am testing the following patch to remove the code determining
> >> the target virtual operand to walk to and instead compute it
> >> based on the immediate dominato
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>
>> I am testing the following patch to remove the code determining
>> the target virtual operand to walk to and instead compute it
>> based on the immediate dominator which we will reach anyways
>> (or a dominating block) dur
On Fri, 3 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I am testing the following patch to remove the code determining
> the target virtual operand to walk to and instead compute it
> based on the immediate dominator which we will reach anyways
> (or a dominating block) during maybe_skip_until.
>
> More
