> On 6 October 2016 at 18:51, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What do you mean by "for instance?" What are the other cases when it
> >> > happens?
> >> Well ipa_get_type() returned NULL for 481.wrf, and I assumed it was a
> >> fortran-only
> >> code-base but apparently it's a mix of C and fortra
On 6 October 2016 at 18:51, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "for instance?" What are the other cases when it
>> > happens?
>> Well ipa_get_type() returned NULL for 481.wrf, and I assumed it was a
>> fortran-only
>> code-base but apparently it's a mix of C and fortran.
>
> Yep, I
> >
> > What do you mean by "for instance?" What are the other cases when it
> > happens?
> Well ipa_get_type() returned NULL for 481.wrf, and I assumed it was a
> fortran-only
> code-base but apparently it's a mix of C and fortran.
Yep, I also have expreinece that the K&R style declarations are
On 5 October 2016 at 19:45, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, my main desktop disk has died (a slow but certain) death so I
> am not particularly responsive either.
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:37:38AM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 22 September 2016 at 17:26, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
Hi,
sorry, my main desktop disk has died (a slow but certain) death so I
am not particularly responsive either.
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:37:38AM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 22 September 2016 at 17:26, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Yes, can you please verify that alignments it computes are
> Hi,
> Sorry for late response, I was travelling.
> I tried to verify the alignments are monotonously worse with the
> attached patch (verify.diff),
> which asserts that alignment lattice is not better than bits lattice
> during each propagation
> step in propagate_constants_accross_call().
> Does
On 22 September 2016 at 17:26, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The attached patch tries to extend ipa bits propagation to handle
>> pointer alignment propagation.
>> The patch just disables ipa-cp-alignment pass, I suppose we want to
>> eventually remove it ?
>
> Yes, can you please verify that align
> Hi,
> The attached patch tries to extend ipa bits propagation to handle
> pointer alignment propagation.
> The patch just disables ipa-cp-alignment pass, I suppose we want to
> eventually remove it ?
Yes, can you please verify that alignments it computes are monotonously
worse than those your ne
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The attached patch tries to extend ipa bits propagation to handle
>> pointer alignment propagation.
>> The patch just disables ipa-cp-alignment pass, I suppose we want
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> The attached patch tries to extend ipa bits propagation to handle
> pointer alignment propagation.
> The patch just disables ipa-cp-alignment pass, I suppose we want to
> eventually remove it ?
>
> Bootstrap+tested on x86_64-unkno
10 matches
Mail list logo
