On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/14/2017 03:05 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> This is the second try fixing PR71437. The old version patch tried to fix
>> issue in VRP but it requires further non-trivial change in VRP,
>> specifically, to better support variable value r
On 02/14/2017 03:05 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
This is the second try fixing PR71437. The old version patch tried to fix
issue in VRP but it requires further non-trivial change in VRP, specifically,
to better support variable value ranges. This is not appropriate at stage 4.
Alternatively, th
On 02/16/2017 04:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
This is the second try fixing PR71437. The old version patch tried to fix
issue in VRP but it requires further non-trivial change in VRP, specifically,
to better support variable value ranges
On 02/14/2017 03:05 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
This is the second try fixing PR71437. The old version patch tried to fix
issue in VRP but it requires further non-trivial change in VRP, specifically,
to better support variable value ranges. This is not appropriate at stage 4.
Alternatively, th
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This is the second try fixing PR71437. The old version patch tried to fix
> issue in VRP but it requires further non-trivial change in VRP, specifically,
> to better support variable value ranges. This is not appropriate at stage 4.
>
Hi,
This is the second try fixing PR71437. The old version patch tried to fix
issue in VRP but it requires further non-trivial change in VRP, specifically,
to better support variable value ranges. This is not appropriate at stage 4.
Alternatively, this patch tries to fix issue by improving th
