Hi!
On 2019-10-30T12:19:28+0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> ..., and when building gcc-9-branch with
>> '--enable-checking=yes,extra,rtl' (apparently I'm the only one doing
>> that, huh?), runs into the following (at least I suppose
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> ..., and when building gcc-9-branch with
> '--enable-checking=yes,extra,rtl' (apparently I'm the only one doing
> that, huh?), runs into the following (at least I suppose that's what's
I'm testing release branches with
Hi!
On 2019-05-06T11:36:22+0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > On Fri, 3 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> I am testing the following patch [...]
... which apparently also got backported to gcc-9-branch eventually...
>>
On Sat, 4 May 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Fri, 3 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I am testing the following patch to remove the code determining
> >> the target virtual operand to walk to and instead compute it
> >> based on the immediate
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>
>> I am testing the following patch to remove the code determining
>> the target virtual operand to walk to and instead compute it
>> based on the immediate dominator which we will reach anyways
>> (or a dominating block)
On Fri, 3 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I am testing the following patch to remove the code determining
> the target virtual operand to walk to and instead compute it
> based on the immediate dominator which we will reach anyways
> (or a dominating block) during maybe_skip_until.
>
> More
I am testing the following patch to remove the code determining
the target virtual operand to walk to and instead compute it
based on the immediate dominator which we will reach anyways
(or a dominating block) during maybe_skip_until.
More simplifying might be possible but I'm trying to keep
