On 26 November 2013 01:25, Mike Stump wrote:
> Oh, and I did mean to ask, Ok? for the original patch as well.
Yes.
On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> On 25 November 2013 23:27, Mike Stump wrote:
>> Certainly it is reasonable to include this, and by doing this, one doesn't
>> have to worry if another header changes to not include it.
>>
>> Ok for the patch directly below?
>
> OK.
Oh, and
On 25 November 2013 23:27, Mike Stump wrote:
> Certainly it is reasonable to include this, and by doing this, one doesn't
> have to worry if another header changes to not include it.
>
> Ok for the patch directly below?
OK.
On Nov 23, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> wide-int.h says widest_int is always signed, yet the iterations count
> in the doloop interface is now unsigned. So, which is right, the code
> or the documentation?
The interface for TARGET_CAN_USE_DOLOOP_P's iteration parameter is documented
On 24 November 2013 02:57, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> if the compiler produced an error message about not finding something, we
> added the include.
If you can't tell what you need/should include by what you use, that
leads to fragile design.
> It is possible that some of these may be redundant a
On 11/23/2013 08:19 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
On 23 November 2013 19:19, Mike Stump wrote:
Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port and
front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through the
entire patch.This patch covers the arc po
On 23 November 2013 19:19, Mike Stump wrote:
> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port
> and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through
> the entire patch.This patch covers the arc port.
>
> Ok?
>
wide-int.h says widest_int is
