On 13-06-19 1:23 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
Ping.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
equivalent with a mem, lowered its mem_cost in scan_one_insn, set
Should the patch be ported to in 48 branch?
thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
On 13-06-19 1:23 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
Ping.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
Yes, I think so.
Regards,
Wei.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Should the patch be ported to in 48 branch?
thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 13-06-19 1:23 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
Ping.
+jakub who manages GCC 4.8 releases.
David
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
Yes, I think so.
Regards,
Wei.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Should the patch be ported to in 48 branch?
thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun
Ping.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
equivalent with a mem, lowered its mem_cost in scan_one_insn, set
NO_REGS to its rclass, but didn't
The testcase is attached.
Thanks,
Wei.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:03 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Wei Mi w...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
pr57518 happened because update_equiv_regs in IRA marked a reg
equivalent with a mem, lowered its mem_cost in scan_one_insn, set
NO_REGS to its rclass, but didn't consider