On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:22:28AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > back in January in
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00848.html Eric pointed
>> > out a testcas
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:22:28AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > back in January in
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00848.html Eric pointed
> > out a testcase where the problem was SRA not scalarizing an aggregate
> > b
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> back in January in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00848.html Eric pointed
> out a testcase where the problem was SRA not scalarizing an aggregate
> because it was involved in a throwing statement. The reason is that
> SRA is lik
> back in January in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00848.html Eric pointed
> out a testcase where the problem was SRA not scalarizing an aggregate
> because it was involved in a throwing statement. The reason is that
> SRA is likely to need to append new statements after each one
Hi,
back in January in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00848.html Eric pointed
out a testcase where the problem was SRA not scalarizing an aggregate
because it was involved in a throwing statement. The reason is that
SRA is likely to need to append new statements after each one where
