Re: [patch][lra] Use XNEWVEC and friends instead of xmalloc/xrealloc, and add some timevars
On 12-10-03 6:53 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: Hello, This patch uses the libiberty new-like operators instead of using xmalloc/xrealloc. It also adds timevars for the main LRA phases, and it fixes a warning suggesting a space before a ';' in an only-looping for loop. Bootstrapped (lra-branch, of course) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK? Hi Vlad, Is this patch OK for the lra-branch? Yes. Thanks, Steven. I found only one typo: +DEFTIMEVAR (TV_LRA_ELIMINATE , "LRA virtuals eliminatenon") ^
Re: [patch][lra] Use XNEWVEC and friends instead of xmalloc/xrealloc, and add some timevars
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Hello, > > This patch uses the libiberty new-like operators instead of using > xmalloc/xrealloc. > It also adds timevars for the main LRA phases, and it fixes a warning > suggesting a space before a ';' in an only-looping for loop. > > Bootstrapped (lra-branch, of course) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK? Hi Vlad, Is this patch OK for the lra-branch? Ciao! Steven
Re: [patch][lra] Use XNEWVEC and friends instead of xmalloc/xrealloc, and add some timevars
On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:05 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > This patch uses the libiberty new-like operators instead of using > xmalloc/xrealloc. So, in headers that can be used by C compiles, we should use the abstraction… Should we prefer it for translation units that are C++ only?
[patch][lra] Use XNEWVEC and friends instead of xmalloc/xrealloc, and add some timevars
Hello, This patch uses the libiberty new-like operators instead of using xmalloc/xrealloc. It also adds timevars for the main LRA phases, and it fixes a warning suggesting a space before a ';' in an only-looping for loop. Bootstrapped (lra-branch, of course) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK? Ciao! Steven lra_XALLOC.diff Description: Binary data
