On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ira Rosen wrote:
>
>
> Richard Guenther 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
Richard Guenther 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
> >> tree-vectori
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ira Rosen wrote:
>
>
> Steven Bosscher wrote on 02/06/2010 06:13:36 PM:
>
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Mark Mitchell
> wrote:
>> > Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> >
>> >>> So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If
>> >>> so, can revie
Steven Bosscher wrote on 02/06/2010 06:13:36 PM:
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, 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
> >>> ne
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, 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
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 ho
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
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
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 eliminat
Hello,
Just yesterday alone, I found two target *macros* introduced in 2008/2009:
TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST, introduced by:
2008-07-06 Kai Tietz
* config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST): New.
* doc/tm.texi (TARGET_FN_ABI_VA_LIST): New.
(TARGET_CANONICAL_VA_LIST_TYPE): New
10 matches
Mail list logo