On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:47:16PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
On 05/28/2015 08:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:57:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
But we've been trying to avoid this. And the jit might not be too happy
about it either.
Yeah, we should certainly try
On May 28, 2015 7:06:36 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/28/2015 04:42 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Am I right in thinking that this is a statically-allocated object
with a
non-trivial constructor? i.e. that this constructor has to run
before
main is entered?
Do our coding
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:57:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
But we've been trying to avoid this. And the jit might not be too happy about
it either.
Yeah, we should certainly try to avoid them, especially if it would affect
many variables having to be constructed.
Jakub
On 05/28/2015 08:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:57:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
But we've been trying to avoid this. And the jit might not be too happy about
it either.
Yeah, we should certainly try to avoid them, especially if it would affect
many variables
On 05/28/2015 04:42 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Am I right in thinking that this is a statically-allocated object with a
non-trivial constructor? i.e. that this constructor has to run before
main is entered?
Do our coding guidelines allow for this? (I've been burned by this
before, on a buggy
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 06:42:57AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 15:56 +0200, mliska wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-04-30 Martin Liska mli...@suse.cz
* ira-color.c (init_update_cost_records): Use new type-based pool
allocator.
(get_update_cost_record):
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 15:56 +0200, mliska wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-04-30 Martin Liska mli...@suse.cz
* ira-color.c (init_update_cost_records): Use new type-based pool
allocator.
(get_update_cost_record): Likewise.
(free_update_cost_record_list): Likewise.
