Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi Mike, on 2021/12/3 上午8:51, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:57:12AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Why are there OPTION_MASKs for separate P10 fusion types here, as well as >> MASK_P10_FUSION? > > Well going back in time, before we used rs6000_isa_flags, we used the

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:57:12AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Why are there OPTION_MASKs for separate P10 fusion types here, as well as > MASK_P10_FUSION? Well going back in time, before we used rs6000_isa_flags, we used the default flag word for MASK arguments. Unfortunately, the

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi! On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:55:51PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > This patch is to fix the inconsistent behaviors for non-LTO mode > and LTO mode. As Martin pointed out, currently the function > rs6000_can_inline_p simply makes it inlinable if callee_tree is > NULL, but it's wrong, we should use

PING^6 [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi, Gentle ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html One related patch [1] is ready to commit, whose test cases rely on this patch if no changes are applied to them. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579658.html BR, Kewen

PING^5 [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi, Gentle ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html One related patch [1] is ready to commit, whose test cases rely on this patch if no changes are applied to them. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579658.html BR, Kewen

PING^4 [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi, Gentle ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html One related patch [1] is ready to commit, whose test cases rely on this patch if no changes are applied to them. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579658.html BR, Kewen

PING^3 [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi, Gentle ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html One related patch [1] is ready to commit, whose test cases rely on this patch if no changes are applied to them. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579658.html BR, Kewen

PING^2 [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi, Gentle ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html One related patch [1] is ready to commit, whose test cases rely on this patch if no changes are applied to them. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579658.html BR, Kewen

PING^1 [PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi! Gentle ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html BR, Kewen on 2021/9/1 下午2:55, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi! > > This patch is to fix the inconsistent behaviors for non-LTO mode > and LTO mode. As Martin pointed out, currently the

[PATCH] rs6000: Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p [PR102059]

Hi! This patch is to fix the inconsistent behaviors for non-LTO mode and LTO mode. As Martin pointed out, currently the function rs6000_can_inline_p simply makes it inlinable if callee_tree is NULL, but it's wrong, we should use the command line options from target_option_default_node as