On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Ira Rosen wrote:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 03:30:59 PM:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM:
Handling of negative steps broke
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Ira Rosen wrote:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 03:30:59 PM:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM:
Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in
the vectorizer. The following patch drops one
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 05/07/2011 12:35:24 PM:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Ira Rosen wrote:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 03:30:59 PM:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50
PM:
Handling of negative steps broke
Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in
the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't
make sense of. I think all asserts need comments - especially
this one would, as I can't see why using vf is correct to
test against and not nelements (and why = vf and not
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM:
Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in
the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't
make sense of. I think all asserts need comments - especially
this one would, as I can't see why using
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Ira Rosen wrote:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM:
Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in
the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't
make sense of. I think all asserts need comments -
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 03:30:59 PM:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM:
Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in
the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't
make sense of. I think