On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM,
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
Indeed - I have committed the
On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
Indeed - I have committed the fix.
Thanks,
Richard.
This caused segfault for patterns when simplification
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the late reply. I
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
I had a look at PR 14753
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14753) from the first
link. I have tried to implement those transforms (attached patch,
stage-1 compiled).
I have written the transforms to operate on GENERIC.
Why not
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
I had a look at PR 14753
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14753) from the first
link. I have tried to implement those transforms (attached patch,
stage-1
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
The patterns mentioned in the links were:
a) (X CST1) = CST2 - X = CST2 CST1
however, an expression Y = CST gets folded
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
regarding the following points:
a) Pattern
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
regarding the following points:
a) Pattern matching: Currently, gimple_match_and_simplify() matches
patterns one-by-one. Could
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Prathamesh
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM,
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
like to work on moving folding patterns from
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
like to work on moving folding patterns from fold-const.c to gimple.
I've seen the entry on our GSoC project page and edited it to
Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
like to work on moving folding patterns from fold-const.c to gimple.
If I understand correctly, constant folding is done on GENERIC (by
routines in fold-const.c), and then GENERIC is lowered to GIMPLE. The
purpose of this
20 matches
Mail list logo
