On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 05:38:12PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 05:38:12PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Given the special value to note the default for the new --params is
zero a
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Given the special value to note the default for the new --params is
zero a user cannot disable scalarization that way.
I still somehow dislike
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
After hookizing MOVE_BY_PIECES_P and migrating tree-inline.c, we are
left with only one user of MOVE_RATIO - deciding the maximum size of
aggregate for SRA.
Past discussions have made it clear [1] that
Hi,
After hookizing MOVE_BY_PIECES_P and migrating tree-inline.c, we are
left with only one user of MOVE_RATIO - deciding the maximum size of
aggregate for SRA.
Past discussions have made it clear [1] that keeping this use of
MOVE_RATIO is undesirable. Clearly it is now also misnamed.
The
