Have you (with your suggested fix?)
Sun
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Gang Yu wrote:
> The unrelated-stuff make the compiler build broken. So, we have to fix it.
>
> Thanks
> Gang
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Sun Chan wrote:
>>
>> does this implementation make sense for you folks?
Yes, although I do not check-in. With this patch, our daily regression is
now OK.
Gang
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Sun Chan wrote:
> Have you (with your suggested fix?)
> Sun
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Gang Yu wrote:
> > The unrelated-stuff make the compiler build broken. So,
The unrelated-stuff make the compiler build broken. So, we have to fix it.
Thanks
Gang
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Sun Chan wrote:
> does this implementation make sense for you folks?
> Sun
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Gang Yu wrote:
> > Sun:
> >
> >We have a check on this
does this implementation make sense for you folks?
Sun
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Gang Yu wrote:
> Sun:
>
> We have a check on this (Is_Target_SSE41()), it is defined in
> osprey/common/com/X8664/config_targ.h:
>
> 182#define Is_Target_SSE41() (Target_SSE41 == TRUE)
>
> We believe
Sun:
We have a check on this (Is_Target_SSE41()), it is defined in
osprey/common/com/X8664/config_targ.h:
182#define Is_Target_SSE41() (Target_SSE41 == TRUE)
We believe it is unrelated to other targets, so still should we define this
Is_Target_SSE41() for other targets?
Thanks
Gang
1.p has no assertion. Can you add? E.g. I would assert num_bbs no less
than 1. The func LOOP_Block_Merge is not targ_x86, is it? As long as
the call to it is TARG_X8664, it should be fine.
2.p, you are using bool, please use BOOL like that of 1.p
if the segment:
bool uses_destructive_d
