On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:31:38PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:30:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 23,
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:31:38PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:30:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:50:51PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > On Fri
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:30:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:50:51PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > two days ago I
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Jay Foad wrote:
> On 23 April 2012 14:30, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Well, CCP simply tracks known-bits and derives the alignment
> > value from that. If tem & -tem computes as zero that means
> > val->mask.low is all zeros.
>
> Doesn't that mean that all bits are known? S
On 23 April 2012 14:30, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Well, CCP simply tracks known-bits and derives the alignment
> value from that. If tem & -tem computes as zero that means
> val->mask.low is all zeros.
Doesn't that mean that all bits are known? So you could set:
pi->align = 1 << 32; // or som
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:50:51PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
> > > the expected alignment of ob
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:50:51PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
> > the expected alignment of objects and pointers we have and he
> > suggested that get_obje
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Jay Foad wrote:
> On 20 April 2012 16:54, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
>> the expected alignment of objects and pointers we have and he
>> suggested that get_object_alignment_1 and get_pointer_align
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
> the expected alignment of objects and pointers we have and he
> suggested that get_object_alignment_1 and get_pointer_alignment_1
> should return whether the alignment is a
On 20 April 2012 16:54, Martin Jambor wrote:
> two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
> the expected alignment of objects and pointers we have and he
> suggested that get_object_alignment_1 and get_pointer_alignment_1
> should return whether the alignment is actuall
Hi,
two days ago I talked to Richi on IRC about the functions to determine
the expected alignment of objects and pointers we have and he
suggested that get_object_alignment_1 and get_pointer_alignment_1
should return whether the alignment is actually known and return the
actual alignment in a refe
11 matches
Mail list logo