On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Richard,
> >> Does this have to wait for stage 1? Or I will try to work out a full
> >> patch with loop recreating issue fixed.
> >
> > If it is a
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>> Does this have to wait for stage 1? Or I will try to work out a full
>> patch with loop recreating issue fixed.
>
> If it is a regression and there is a bugzilla about it it doesn't
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Does this have to wait for stage 1? Or I will try to work out a full
> patch with loop recreating issue fixed.
If it is a regression and there is a bugzilla about it it doesn't
have to wait.
The patch should be complete (but is untested yet)
Hi Richard,
Does this have to wait for stage 1? Or I will try to work out a full
patch with loop recreating issue fixed.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This allows cfgcleanup to remove some of the extra CFG that exists
> just for loop analysis passes convenience (those
This allows cfgcleanup to remove some of the extra CFG that exists
just for loop analysis passes convenience (those can be and are
easily re-created by passes doing loop_optimizer_init ()).
It may fix a regression uncovered in private communication.
Untested - my original idea how to fix this (t
