Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote on 02/06/2010 06:13:36 PM:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If
so, can reviewers please take care to reject
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ira Rosen i...@il.ibm.com wrote:
Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote on 02/06/2010 06:13:36 PM:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote on 03/06/2010 02:00:00
PM:
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_NOT_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_SCALAR_STMT_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_SCALAR_LOAD_COST
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ira Rosen i...@il.ibm.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote on 03/06/2010 02:00:00
PM:
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_NOT_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If
so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce
new macros?
I don't know to which extent this is a
On 05/26/2010 07:03 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
This is the reason why we implemented TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS as
macro (note that all the other address-space related back-end
callbacks were already implemented as hooks to begin with).
One nice cleanup would be to merge the per-address-space
Hello,
Just yesterday alone, I found two target *macros* introduced in 2008/2009:
TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST, introduced by:
2008-07-06 Kai Tietz kai dot tietz at onevision dot com
* config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST): New.
* doc/tm.texi (TARGET_FN_ABI_VA_LIST): New.
Steven Bosscher wrote:
So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If
so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce
new macros?
I don't know to which extent this is a formal goal these days, but I
personally agree that it would be nice to eliminate
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If
so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce
new macros?
I don't know to which extent this is a formal goal these days, but I
personally agree that it would be nice to
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:16:22AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If
so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce
new macros?
I don't know to which extent this is a formal goal
10 matches
Mail list logo