On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> NB, the whole reassoc code needs a re-write to avoid the excessive >> stmt modifications when it does nothing. So I'd very much rather avoid >> adding anything to reassoc until that rewrite happened. > > IMHO it's fair to Easwaran to hold up a patch for a hypothetical > rewrite. Do you have a plan for this rewrite in mind? If not, and > Easwaran's patch does something good (I haven't looked at it to tell) > then it seems to me it should be considered for including.
Did you mean "fair" or "unfair"? Ian
