On 11/10/14 09:59, Renlin Li wrote:
On 06/11/14 18:07, Renlin Li wrote:
On 06/11/14 17:59, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Thanks for fixing the test case. Can you also add the comment I
suggested to the source change?
Please add a comment that this is needed due to insane incoming
frequencies.
On 06/11/14 18:07, Renlin Li wrote:
On 06/11/14 17:59, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Thanks for fixing the test case. Can you also add the comment I
suggested to the source change?
Please add a comment that this is needed due to insane incoming
frequencies.
Sorry, I mistakenly add it to the
Hi Renlin,
Looks like Jeff already approved it:
Can you add a testcase please? With a testcase, this patch is OK for the
trunk.
Teresa
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Renlin Li renlin...@arm.com wrote:
On 06/11/14 18:07, Renlin Li wrote:
On 06/11/14 17:59, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Thanks
Hi Jeff,
Test case has been added. With the patch, both x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
and aarch64-none-elf compile the test case successfully.
Okay to commit?
On 04/11/14 21:59, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/03/14 08:29, Renlin Li wrote:
On 29/10/14 12:42, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Hi Renlin,
Are the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Renlin Li renlin...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Test case has been added. With the patch, both x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
aarch64-none-elf compile the test case successfully.
Okay to commit?
On 04/11/14 21:59, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/03/14 08:29, Renlin Li
Thanks for fixing the test case. Can you also add the comment I
suggested to the source change?
Please add a comment that this is needed due to insane incoming frequencies.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Renlin Li renlin...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Teresa,
Thank you for the
On 06/11/14 17:59, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Thanks for fixing the test case. Can you also add the comment I
suggested to the source change?
Please add a comment that this is needed due to insane incoming frequencies.
Sorry, I mistakenly add it to the ChangeLog. Should be correct now.
On 11/03/14 08:29, Renlin Li wrote:
On 29/10/14 12:42, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Hi Renlin,
Are the incoming edge counts or probabilities insane in this case? I
guess the patch is ok if we need to do this to handle those incoming
insanitiles. But I can't approve patches myself.
Not really, it's
On 29/10/14 12:42, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Hi Renlin,
Are the incoming edge counts or probabilities insane in this case? I
guess the patch is ok if we need to do this to handle those incoming
insanitiles. But I can't approve patches myself.
Not really, it's just a little bigger than the limit.
Hi all,
This is a simple patch to fix ICE in comment 2 of PR61529:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61529
Bound checking code is added to make sure the frequency is within legal
range.
As far as I have observed, r215830 patch fixes the glibc building ICE.
And this patch should
Hi Renlin,
Are the incoming edge counts or probabilities insane in this case? I
guess the patch is ok if we need to do this to handle those incoming
insanitiles. But I can't approve patches myself.
However, this is a fix to code (r215739) committed after the ICE in
the original bug report and in
11 matches
Mail list logo
