On 11-07-08 3:25 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 07.07.2011 20:18, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The changes in sel-sched.c is ok for me. i386.md changes look ok for
me too
but you should ask a x86 maintainer to get an approval for the change.
I think you should describe the attribute in the docu
On 07.07.2011 20:18, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 07/01/2011 10:50 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 26.05.2011 17:32, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute becaus
On 07/01/11 16:50, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> On 26.05.2011 17:32, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
>> On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody
will
care to mark all o
On 07/01/2011 10:50 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 26.05.2011 17:32, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody
will
care to mark all offending insn
On 26.05.2011 17:32, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody will
care to mark all offending insns with an attribute.
I don't know. IIRC when I loo
On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody will
care to mark all offending insns with an attribute.
I don't know. IIRC when I looked at sh or whatever the broken port was,
it wa
On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody will
> care to mark all offending insns with an attribute.
I don't know. IIRC when I looked at sh or whatever the broken port was,
it was only two insns - there would still be so
On 25.05.2011 18:41, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/25/2011 08:21 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Vlad, Bernd, I wonder if we can avoid having recog_memoized>=0 insns
that do not have proper DFA reservations (that is, they do not change
the DFA state). I see that existing practice allows this as sho
On 05/25/2011 08:21 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> Vlad, Bernd, I wonder if we can avoid having recog_memoized >=0 insns
> that do not have proper DFA reservations (that is, they do not change
> the DFA state). I see that existing practice allows this as shown by
> Bernd's patch to 48403, i.e. su
Hello,
This patch fixes PR 49014, yet another case of the insn with wrong
reservation. Approved by Uros in the PR audit trail, bootstrapped and
regtested on x86-64/linux and committed to trunk.
Vlad, Bernd, I wonder if we can avoid having recog_memoized >=0 insns that
do not have proper DFA
10 matches
Mail list logo
