On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/23/2013 01:05 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 12:21 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 09/20/2013 04:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com
On 09/24/2013 05:50 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Did you forget to attach the patch?
Of course not! :-P
Oh how I hate mondays.
Old patch attached?
Richard.
Errr. no. that last one has gimple-builder.[ch] and the
ssa_replace_lhs renamed to gimple_replace_ssa_lhs..
I'll also wait
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/24/2013 05:50 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Did you forget to attach the patch?
Of course not! :-P
Oh how I hate mondays.
Old patch attached?
Richard.
Errr. no. that last one has gimple-builder.[ch]
On 09/20/2013 04:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/19/2013 09:24 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think this is of most use to ssa passes that need to construct code
snippets, so I propose we make this ssa specific and put
On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 12:21 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 09/20/2013 04:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/19/2013 09:24 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think this is of most use to ssa passes that need to construct
On 09/23/2013 01:05 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 12:21 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 09/20/2013 04:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/19/2013 09:24 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think this is of most
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm looking at pulling ssa specific bits out of gimple.c so that it doesn't
require the ssa headers, and can concentrate on basic gimple support. I
stumbled across the new build interface in gimple.c consisting of
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/19/2013 09:24 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think this is of most use to ssa passes that need to construct code
snippets, so I propose we make this ssa specific and put it in tree-ssa.c
(renaming it
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:08:20AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Can you move the builders to asan.c please? From a quick glance it seems
to have various issues so it shouldn't be used (I wonder who approved them
in the end ... maybe it was even me).
Moving them to asan.c looks wrong. If we
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
I see the benefit in the streamlined asan.c code, but I detest that
ssa_mode flag. And as long as it supports SSA, I don't think it should be
in gimple.c.
Yeah, at the time that I introduced it, I had a hard time
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/19/2013 09:24 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think this is of most use to ssa passes that need to construct code
snippets, so I
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/19/2013 09:24 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think this
First attempt bounced from gcc-patches for some reason trying one
more time.
I'm looking at pulling ssa specific bits out of gimple.c so that it
doesn't require the ssa headers, and can concentrate on basic gimple
support. I stumbled across the new build interface in gimple.c
On 09/19/2013 09:24 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think this is of most use to ssa passes that need to construct code
snippets, so I propose we make this ssa specific and put it in
tree-ssa.c (renaming it ssa_build_assign), *OR* we could leave it
general purpose and put it in its own set of
14 matches
Mail list logo
