Hi,
I have not managed to ping this, get it approved and commit it in time
for gcc 5 but it is a useful cleanup that clarifies a number of things
and something I'd like to base further cleanups on. It still applies
cleanly and I have re-tested and re-bootstrapped the patch on
x86_64-linux
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 07:22:02PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
+/* Decrease alignment info DEST to be at most CUR. */
+
+static bool
+decrease_alignment (ipa_alignment *dest, ipa_alignment cur)
+{
+ bool changed = false;
+
+ if (!cur.known)
+return false;
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 06:16:47AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
...
This is followup patch that also fixes ;; issue.
It makes the alignment propagation to do proper lattice operations instead
of requiring perfect match and dropping everything to bottom otherwise.
Martin, does it look OK?
+/* Decrease alignment info DEST to be at most CUR. */
+
+static bool
+decrease_alignment (ipa_alignment *dest, ipa_alignment cur)
+{
+ bool changed = false;
+
+ if (!cur.known)
+return false;
I really think this should be return set_alignment_to_bottom (dest);
If
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:39:29AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes alignment propagation that causes wrong code on solex and
firefox.
Patch is by Martin, I just added the obvous MINUS_EXPR fix (the offset
would be wrong,
but I see no reason for MINUX_ExPR appearing
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:39:29AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
this patch fixes alignment propagation that causes wrong code on solex and
firefox.
Patch is by Martin, I just added the obvous MINUS_EXPR fix (the offset would
be wrong,
but I see no reason for MINUX_ExPR appearing there
Hi,
this patch fixes alignment propagation that causes wrong code on solex and
firefox.
Patch is by Martin, I just added the obvous MINUS_EXPR fix (the offset would be
wrong,
but I see no reason for MINUX_ExPR appearing there with constant parameter),
went
ahead and commited the fix.
Tested on
