On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Dorau, Lukasz wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:44 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>> wrote:
>> > On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Dorau, Lukasz lukasz.do...@intel.com wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:44 PM Alexei Starovoitov
alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote:
On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei
On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:44 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37
On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:44 PM Alexei Starovoitov
alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote:
On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> My story is very simply...
On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz
> > wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> My story is very simply...
> >> I applied the following patch:
> >>
> >> diff --git
Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
> disable Value Range Propagation pass:
> -fdisable-tree-vrp1 -fdisable-tree-vrp2
>
> and complete unroll pass:
> -fdisable-tree-cunrolli
Can you file a gcc bug with test case?
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> My story is very simply...
>> I applied the following patch:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
>>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz wrote:
> Hi
>
> My story is very simply...
> I applied the following patch:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> --- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> @@ -698,8 +698,11 @@ static int
On Friday, January 17, 2014 5:40 PM Sebastian Riemer
wrote:
> On 17.01.2014 14:55, Dorau, Lukasz wrote:
> >
> > Some additional information:
> >
> > The loop 'for' in macro ' for_each_isci_host ' defined as
> (drivers/scsi/isci/host.h:313):
> >
> > #define for_each_isci_host(id, ihost, pdev) \
>
On 17.01.2014 14:55, Dorau, Lukasz wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:37 PM Dorau, Lukasz
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> My story is very simply...
>> I applied the following patch:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
>> +++
On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:58 PM Richard Weinberger
wrote:
>
> Can you reproduce this using a standalone test?
> I.e:
> #include
>
> int main()
> {
> assert(2 < 2 != 1);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
No, I can't of course.
Lukasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Dorau, Lukasz wrote:
> Hi
>
> My story is very simply...
> I applied the following patch:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> --- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> @@ -698,8 +698,11 @@ static int
On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:37 PM Dorau, Lukasz
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> My story is very simply...
> I applied the following patch:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> --- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
> @@ -698,8 +698,11 @@ static
On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:37 PM Dorau, Lukasz lukasz.do...@intel.com
wrote:
Hi
My story is very simply...
I applied the following patch:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
--- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
@@ -698,8
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Dorau, Lukasz lukasz.do...@intel.com wrote:
Hi
My story is very simply...
I applied the following patch:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
--- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
@@ -698,8 +698,11 @@
On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:58 PM Richard Weinberger
richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you reproduce this using a standalone test?
I.e:
#include assert.h
int main()
{
assert(2 2 != 1);
return 0;
}
No, I can't of course.
Lukasz
--
To unsubscribe from
On 17.01.2014 14:55, Dorau, Lukasz wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:37 PM Dorau, Lukasz lukasz.do...@intel.com
wrote:
Hi
My story is very simply...
I applied the following patch:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
--- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
+++
On Friday, January 17, 2014 5:40 PM Sebastian Riemer
sebastian.rie...@profitbricks.com wrote:
On 17.01.2014 14:55, Dorau, Lukasz wrote:
Some additional information:
The loop 'for' in macro ' for_each_isci_host ' defined as
(drivers/scsi/isci/host.h:313):
#define
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz lukasz.do...@intel.com wrote:
Hi
My story is very simply...
I applied the following patch:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
--- a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
@@ -698,8 +698,11 @@
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz lukasz.do...@intel.com wrote:
Hi
My story is very simply...
I applied the following patch:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/init.c
Alexei Starovoitov alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com writes:
disable Value Range Propagation pass:
-fdisable-tree-vrp1 -fdisable-tree-vrp2
and complete unroll pass:
-fdisable-tree-cunrolli
Can you file a gcc bug with test case?
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
To
On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz lukasz.do...@intel.com
wrote:
Hi
My story is very simply...
I applied the following patch:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote:
On 2014.01.17 at 11:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Dorau, Lukasz
24 matches
Mail list logo