On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 13:11 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Pro forma ping. :)
;)
I notice (with all of these
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Pro forma ping. :)
;)
I notice (with all of these functions)
+unsigned
+negate_cost (enum machine_mode mode, bool speed)
+{
+ static unsigned costs[NUM_MACHINE_MODES];
+ rtx seq;
+ unsigned cost;
+
+ if
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 13:11 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Pro forma ping. :)
;)
I notice (with all of these functions)
+unsigned
+negate_cost (enum machine_mode mode, bool speed)
+{
+ static
On 06/20/2012 04:11 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
I notice (with all of these functions)
+unsigned
+negate_cost (enum machine_mode mode, bool speed)
+{
+ static unsigned costs[NUM_MACHINE_MODES];
+ rtx seq;
+ unsigned cost;
+
+ if (costs[mode])
+return costs[mode];
+
+
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 11:52 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:11 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
I notice (with all of these functions)
+unsigned
+negate_cost (enum machine_mode mode, bool speed)
+{
+ static unsigned costs[NUM_MACHINE_MODES];
+ rtx seq;
+ unsigned
Thought I'd ping http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01225.html
since it's been about six weeks. Any initial feedback would be very
much appreciated!
Thanks,
Bill