On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 14:36, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 09:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been sitting on this for a few days since I'm not 100% happy
> > > with how the code looks like. There's possibly st
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 09:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've been sitting on this for a few days since I'm not 100% happy
> > with how the code looks like. There's possibly still holes in it
> > (chains with mixed signed/unsigned adds for exam
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 09:57, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> I've been sitting on this for a few days since I'm not 100% happy
> with how the code looks like. There's possibly still holes in it
> (chains with mixed signed/unsigned adds for example might pick
> up signed adds in the epilogue), but the
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>> > I've been sitting on this for a few days since I'm not 100% happy
>> > with how the code looks like. There's possibly still holes in it
>> > (chains with mixed signed/unsigned adds for example
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> > I've been sitting on this for a few days since I'm not 100% happy
> > with how the code looks like. There's possibly still holes in it
> > (chains with mixed signed/unsigned adds for example might pick
> > up signed adds i
Richard Biener writes:
> I've been sitting on this for a few days since I'm not 100% happy
> with how the code looks like. There's possibly still holes in it
> (chains with mixed signed/unsigned adds for example might pick
> up signed adds in the epilogue), but the wrong-code cases should
> work
