On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:49 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Unfortunately this seems to be necessary if I name the two
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Unfortunately this seems to be necessary if I name the two
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 09:50 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 09:50 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 15:08 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:15 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Unfortunately this seems to be necessary if I name the two passes
reassoc1 and reassoc2. If I try to name both of them reassoc I
get failures
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi,
This is a re-post of the patch I posted for
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 15:08 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
I've revised my patch along these lines; see the new version below.
While testing it I realized I could do a better job of
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi,
This is a re-post of the patch I posted for comments in January to
address http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589. The patch
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi,
This is a re-post of the patch I posted for comments in January to
address http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589. The patch
modifies reassociation to expose repeated factors from
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:57 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi,
This is a re-post of the patch I posted for comments in January to
address http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589. The patch
14 matches
Mail list logo