Christophe Lyon writes:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 12:36, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On October 14, 2019 2:32:43 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> >>Richard Biener writes:
>> >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM Richard Sandiford
>> >>> wrote:
>> >
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 12:36, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On October 14, 2019 2:32:43 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>Richard Biener writes:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM Richard Sandiford
> >>> wrote:
>
> The range-tracking code ha
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:35 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On October 14, 2019 2:32:43 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>Richard Biener writes:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM Richard Sandiford
> >>> wrote:
>
> The range-tracking code
Richard Biener writes:
> On October 14, 2019 2:32:43 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
is_gimple_min_invariant is equi
On 10/14/19 12:38 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 14, 2019 2:32:43 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
is_gimple_min_invariant is equi
On October 14, 2019 2:32:43 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Richard Biener writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
>>> is_gimple_min_invariant is equivalent to "INTEGER_CST or invarian
On 10/14/19 8:31 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
On 10/14/19 4:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
On 10/11/19 10:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
is_gimple_min_invariant is equivalent t
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
>> is_gimple_min_invariant is equivalent to "INTEGER_CST or invariant
>> ADDR_EXPR". It seems better to add a predicate specifically for
>> th
Aldy Hernandez writes:
> On 10/14/19 4:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Aldy Hernandez writes:
>>> On 10/11/19 10:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
is_gimple_min_invariant is equivalent to "INTEGER_CST or invariant
ADD
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
> is_gimple_min_invariant is equivalent to "INTEGER_CST or invariant
> ADDR_EXPR". It seems better to add a predicate specifically for
> that rather than contiually fight c
On 10/14/19 4:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
On 10/11/19 10:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
is_gimple_min_invariant is equivalent to "INTEGER_CST or invariant
ADDR_EXPR". It seems better to add a predicate
Aldy Hernandez writes:
> On 10/11/19 10:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
>> is_gimple_min_invariant is equivalent to "INTEGER_CST or invariant
>> ADDR_EXPR". It seems better to add a predicate specifically for
>> that rather than c
On 10/11/19 10:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The range-tracking code has a pretty hard-coded assumption that
is_gimple_min_invariant is equivalent to "INTEGER_CST or invariant
ADDR_EXPR". It seems better to add a predicate specifically for
that rather than contiually fight cases in which it ca
13 matches
Mail list logo
