Hi Bin,
On 5/16/19 11:00 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:50 PM Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Thanks, Bin and Richard -- I am out of the office until Tuesday, so will
>> review
>> when I get back. Bin, please CC me on SLSR patches as otherwise I might miss
>> them. Thanks!
> Thanks f
On 5/14/19 10:29 PM, bin.cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> As noted in PR57534 comment #33, SLSR currently doesn't strength reduce memory
> references in reported cases, which conflicts with its comment at the
> beginning of file.
> The main reason is in functions slsr_process_ref and restructure_reference
>
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:50 PM Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> Thanks, Bin and Richard -- I am out of the office until Tuesday, so will
> review
> when I get back. Bin, please CC me on SLSR patches as otherwise I might miss
> them. Thanks!
Thanks for helping. Will do it next time.
Thanks,
bin
>
> B
Thanks, Bin and Richard -- I am out of the office until Tuesday, so will review
when I get back. Bin, please CC me on SLSR patches as otherwise I might miss
them. Thanks!
Bill
On 5/16/19 6:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:30 AM bin.cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> As noted in PR
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:30 AM bin.cheng wrote:
>
> Hi,
> As noted in PR57534 comment #33, SLSR currently doesn't strength reduce memory
> references in reported cases, which conflicts with its comment at the
> beginning of file.
> The main reason is in functions slsr_process_ref and restructure
Hi,
As noted in PR57534 comment #33, SLSR currently doesn't strength reduce memory
references in reported cases, which conflicts with its comment at the beginning
of file.
The main reason is in functions slsr_process_ref and restructure_reference which
rejects MEM_REF by handled_compoenent_p in th
