Hi,
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > I'll also note that the first hunk of your change is in a loop commented
> > with "Compute upper bound, bla ...", meaning to be a heuristic, and your
> > second change is this:
>
> It's not a heuristic. Both of these loops are necessary to comp
On 04/13/2011 01:45 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> And is there any chance to transform this:
>
> +#ifdef HAVE_cc0
> + if (!sets_cc0_p (insn))
> +#endif
> + max_to = insn;
>
> into this:
>
> + if (!sets_cc0_p (insn))
> max_to = insn;
>
> ? Yes, that implies mak
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> This fixes a problem on cc0 machines where we split a sequence of insns
> at a point where we shouldn't - between a cc0 setter and a cc0 user.
>
> The fix is simple enough; just make sure not to pick a cc0 setter as the
> end of such a sequence. Th
