On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2012, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> On Jun 4, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>>> On Oct 13, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 1, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> A long time ago, when variable tracking at assignment
On Apr 9, 2012, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
A long time ago, when variable tracking at assignments was just a
distant dream, we ran into one of the first cont
Ping? (Updated with improved docs; should the options be renamed to
-ftree-copyrename-* to match the option that covers the entire pass?)
On Jun 4, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> A long time ago, when vari
On Jun 5, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> The following changes all look wrong to me, they make the tests totally
>> useless. If both f and g are used in real code after the asm volatile, then
>> the both f and g will likely live in some register or memo
On Jun 4, 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following changes all look wrong to me, they make the tests totally
> useless. If both f and g are used in real code after the asm volatile, then
> the both f and g will likely live in some register or memory.
> The whole point of the construct in the
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 09:40:38AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The following changes all look wrong to me, they make the tests totally
useless. If both f and g are used in real code after the asm volatile, then
the both f and g will likely live in some register or memory.
The whole point of the
On Oct 13, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> A long time ago, when variable tracking at assignments was just a
>> distant dream, we ran into one of the first contentious points, which
>> had to do with coalescing SSA names on copyrename.
>> On the one han
