On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 23:51 +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
> 2013/5/23 Jakub Jelinek :
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:30:35PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
> >> since 2004 (in r80564).
> >>
> >> As part of my hope of quashing glo
2013/5/23 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:30:35PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>> The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
>> since 2004 (in r80564).
>>
>> As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
>> them as const.
>>
>> Bootstr
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:30:35PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
> since 2004 (in r80564).
>
> As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
> them as const.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknow
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 19:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 06:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
> > since 2004 (in r80564).
> >
> > As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
> > them as const.
>
On 05/22/2013 06:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
The arrays of thresholds in gcc/bb-reorder.c appear not to have changed
since 2004 (in r80564).
As part of my hope of quashing global state in gcc, I'd like to mark
them as const.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu against r199189, a
