Re: POINTER_PLUS branch status?

2007-05-31 Thread Jeffrey Law
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:53 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: On 5/30/07, Jeffrey Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: The next step is to see if that patch is no longer needed for hppa (well and fixing the hppa back-end). I would expect you can

Re: POINTER_PLUS branch status?

2007-05-30 Thread Jeffrey Law
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: On 5/29/07, Jeffrey Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't followed PTR_PLUS development at all -- what specifically spurred you to hack on this Andrew? Since we lose a lot of alignment in 4.0 after

Re: POINTER_PLUS branch status?

2007-05-30 Thread Andrew Pinski
On 5/30/07, Jeffrey Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: The next step is to see if that patch is no longer needed for hppa (well and fixing the hppa back-end). I would expect you can kill that patch; I don't think you can fix the PA backend

Re: POINTER_PLUS branch status?

2007-05-29 Thread Jeffrey Law
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Andrew -- I'm trying to firm up GCC 4.3 planning a bit. One of the things I'm considering is whether or not the POINTER_PLUS branch should be merged as part of 4.3. My understanding from looking at your emails is that the branch is

Re: POINTER_PLUS branch status?

2007-05-29 Thread Bob Wilson
Andrew Pinski wrote: I cleaned up the code today so it basically ready to be merged, some (most?) of the target headers still need to be fixed for the change. The list of targets which need to be changed is: alpha ia64 mips pa s390sparcstormy16xtensa I don't have

Re: POINTER_PLUS branch status?

2007-05-29 Thread Andrew Pinski
On 5/29/07, Jeffrey Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't followed PTR_PLUS development at all -- what specifically spurred you to hack on this Andrew? For spu-elf, good alignment information is needed for each load/store as each load/store is only done on 128bit alignment. Since we lose a

POINTER_PLUS branch status?

2007-05-28 Thread Mark Mitchell
Andrew -- I'm trying to firm up GCC 4.3 planning a bit. One of the things I'm considering is whether or not the POINTER_PLUS branch should be merged as part of 4.3. My understanding from looking at your emails is that the branch is in pretty good shape. Would you please give me a summary of

Re: POINTER_PLUS branch status?

2007-05-28 Thread Andrew Pinski
On 5/28/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew -- Would you please give me a summary of the status? Are there regressions on major platforms? The summary is that powerpc-darwin, powerpc64-linux-gnu, spu-elf, i686-linux-gnu bootstraps and tests with two regression (explained below).