On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 1:14 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
@@ -2662,8 +2661,8 @@ iv_number_of_iterations (struct loop *loop, rtx
insn, rtx condition,
iv1.step = const0_rtx;
if (INTVAL (iv0.step) < 0)
{
>
On Nov 26, 2013, at 1:14 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> @@ -2662,8 +2661,8 @@ iv_number_of_iterations (struct loop *loop, rtx
>>> insn, rtx condition,
>>>iv1.step = const0_rtx;
>>>if (INTVAL (iv0.step) < 0)
>>> {
>>> - iv0.step = simplify_gen_unary (NEG, comp_mode, i
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>
> On 11/25/2013 06:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>>
>>> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual
>>> port and front end maintainers can review their part
On 11/25/2013 06:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port and
front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through the
entire patch.This patch covers the
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port
> and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through
> the entire patch.This patch covers the loop code.
>
> Ok?
@@ -2662,8 +2661,8 @@ iv
Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port and
front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through the
entire patch.This patch covers the loop code.
Ok?
* loop-doloop.c
(doloop_modify): Use wide-int interfaces.
(do