On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:57:33PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
> >> Anyway, the patch I posted previously would risk re-introducing PR
> >> 50386 and PR 50326, even though they are very unlikely with just
> >> bit-fields. So my current working version is the following,
Richard Guenther writes:
>> Anyway, the patch I posted previously would risk re-introducing PR
>> 50386 and PR 50326, even though they are very unlikely with just
>> bit-fields. So my current working version is the following, but it
>> causes failure of libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx execution t
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 04:42:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone, especially Richi and Eric,
> > >
> > > I'd like to know what is your attitude to changing SRA's
> > > build_r
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 04:42:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone, especially Richi and Eric,
> >
> > I'd like to know what is your attitude to changing SRA's
> > build_ref_for_model to what it once looked like, so that it produces
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi everyone, especially Richi and Eric,
>
> I'd like to know what is your attitude to changing SRA's
> build_ref_for_model to what it once looked like, so that it produces
> COMPONENT_REFs only for bit-fields. The non-bit field handling was
> added in o
Hi everyone, especially Richi and Eric,
I'd like to know what is your attitude to changing SRA's
build_ref_for_model to what it once looked like, so that it produces
COMPONENT_REFs only for bit-fields. The non-bit field handling was
added in order to work-around problems when expanding non-aligne
