On 2014-10-08 10:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/01/14 17:27, David Malcolm wrote:
FWIW, presumably "insn" here also can now be an rtx_insn *?
(I'd like to eventually strengthen the params to the note-handling
functions, so fixing this up now would help with that).
Here's the updated patch to in
On 10/01/14 17:27, David Malcolm wrote:
FWIW, presumably "insn" here also can now be an rtx_insn *?
(I'd like to eventually strengthen the params to the note-handling
functions, so fixing this up now would help with that).
Here's the updated patch to include strengthening insn to rtx_insn *.
On 10/01/14 17:27, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 16:34 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
This was inspired by a discussion with Felix who was making changes in
this area.
Basically this promotes the "init_insns" field within struct equivalence
from an rtx to an rtx_insn_list.
The only thing
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 16:34 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> This was inspired by a discussion with Felix who was making changes in
> this area.
>
> Basically this promotes the "init_insns" field within struct equivalence
> from an rtx to an rtx_insn_list.
>
> The only thing that's really interesting h
