On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:00 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> > On Wed,
On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 16:51 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > This fixes much of the bloat seen for influence.i when sending ranges
> > through for every token.
>
> Yeah, I think that's on the right track.
Thanks.
> > This was with 8 bits
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
> This fixes much of the bloat seen for influence.i when sending ranges
> through for every token.
Yeah, I think that's on the right track.
> This was with 8 bits allocated for packed ranges (which is probably
> excessive, but it makes debugging
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:00 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> > On Wed,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 15:36 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 23,
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> The compile-time and memory-usage impact for the adhocloc at every token
> patchkit is quite big. Remember that gaining 1% in compile-time is hard
> and 20-40% memory increase for influence.i looks too much.
Yes. OTOH the compile time and
On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 15:36 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On