On 08/26/14 13:28, Richard Sandiford wrote:
[Jeff, sorry for the duplicate, sent the original from an account that
adds disclaimers.]
No worries. Given the 3000+ messages that were waiting for me when I
got back from PTO, what's another duplicate here and there :-)
[ Big snip. ]
invalid and
[Jeff, sorry for the duplicate, sent the original from an account that
adds disclaimers.]
Jeff Law writes:
> On 08/09/14 04:13, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>> On 08/03/14 08:32, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The old for_each_inc_dec callback had a for_each_rtx-like return value
On 08/09/14 04:13, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
On 08/03/14 08:32, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The old for_each_inc_dec callback had a for_each_rtx-like return value,
with >0 being returned directly, 0 meaning "continue" and <0 meaning
"skip subrtxes". But there's no reason to disti
Jeff Law writes:
> On 08/03/14 08:32, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The old for_each_inc_dec callback had a for_each_rtx-like return value,
>> with >0 being returned directly, 0 meaning "continue" and <0 meaning
>> "skip subrtxes". But there's no reason to distinguish the latter two
>> cases since
On 08/03/14 08:32, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The old for_each_inc_dec callback had a for_each_rtx-like return value,
with >0 being returned directly, 0 meaning "continue" and <0 meaning
"skip subrtxes". But there's no reason to distinguish the latter two
cases since auto-inc/dec expressions aren'
The old for_each_inc_dec callback had a for_each_rtx-like return value,
with >0 being returned directly, 0 meaning "continue" and <0 meaning
"skip subrtxes". But there's no reason to distinguish the latter two
cases since auto-inc/dec expressions aren't allowed to contain other
auto-inc/dec expres
