On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, William J. Schmidt wrote:
I've been distracted by other things, but got back to this today...
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 16:58 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ah, so we still have the ARRAY_REFs here. Yeah, well - then the
issue boils down to get_inner_reference
I've been distracted by other things, but got back to this today...
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 16:58 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ah, so we still have the ARRAY_REFs here. Yeah, well - then the
issue boils down to get_inner_reference canonicalizing the offset
according to what fold-const.c
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:30 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
I still do not like the implementation of yet another CSE machinery
given that we already have two.
From reading it it really seems to be a normal block-local CSE, without
anything
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:59 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
(Sorry for the late response; yesterday was a holiday here.)
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 16:21 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 15:16 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:59 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
(Sorry for the late response; yesterday was a holiday here.)
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 16:21 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:28 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 15:16 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:59 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
(Sorry for the late response; yesterday was a holiday here.)
(Sorry for the late response; yesterday was a holiday here.)
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 16:21 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This is the first of three patches related to lowering addressing
expressions to
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:30 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
I still do not like the implementation of yet another CSE machinery
given that we already have two.
From reading it it really seems to be a normal block-local CSE, without
anything
Hi,
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, William J. Schmidt wrote:
Hm, I didn't think it was (currently) possible for a gimple statement to
have a mem-ref on both RHS and LHS. Is that incorrect? This is easily
changed if so, or if the possibility should be left open for the future.
Think aggregate
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:30 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
From reading it it really seems to be a normal block-local CSE, without
anything fancy. Hence, moving the pass just a little earlier (before
pass_vrp/pass_dominator) should already provide for all optimizations. If
not those should
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This is the first of three patches related to lowering addressing
expressions to MEM_REFs and TARGET_MEM_REFs in late gimple. This patch
contains the new pass together with supporting changes in existing
Hi,
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
I still do not like the implementation of yet another CSE machinery
given that we already have two.
From reading it it really seems to be a normal block-local CSE, without
anything fancy. Hence, moving the pass just a little earlier (before
12 matches
Mail list logo
