On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com wrote:
Hi Ramana,
Thanks for your comments,
Please respin using plus_constant instead of gen_addsi3.
Here is my feeling about this:
I experimented on using plus_constant instead of gen_addsi3. But there
are cases
Hi Ramana,
Thanks for your comments,
Please respin using plus_constant instead of gen_addsi3.
Here is my feeling about this:
I experimented on using plus_constant instead of gen_addsi3. But there
are cases when the emitted code is not equivalent for large frames
(!const_ok_for_op (val,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com wrote:
This patch improves the one sent previously,
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01159.html), to fix a few
more failures in the testsuite that could arise with shrink-wrap and
-fexceptions.
To recall,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01402.html
fixes -mapcs-frame -g ICEs.
ok for trunk ?
This patch improves the one sent previously,
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01159.html), to fix a few
more failures in the testsuite that could arise with shrink-wrap and
-fexceptions.
To recall, the problem that it fixes is that with -mapcs-frame :
- the epilogue pops as
Please also check the two test cases in patch
https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg72712.html
Thanks!
-Zhenqiang
On 24 February 2014 17:11, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com wrote:
This patch improves the one sent previously,
On 02/24/2014 11:11 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
Please also check the two test cases in patch
https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg72712.html
Just cheched, they both now pass.
Cheers,
Thanks!
-Zhenqiang
On 24 February 2014 17:11, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com
