On Oct 20, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
On Oct 20, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
This is just a really ugly compatibility hack. Apparently GCC
doesn't do cross jumping of inline asm statements as much as we do,
and we've hit a significant body of code that depends on
On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Oct 20, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
On Oct 20, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
This is just a really ugly compatibility hack. Apparently GCC
doesn't do cross jumping of inline asm statements as much as we do,
and
Don't branch fold inline asm statements.
I'm curious to know why not... I didn't understand the
problem with the testcase.
Duncan.
___
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
On Oct 20, 2007, at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
Don't branch fold inline asm statements.
I'm curious to know why not... I didn't understand the
problem with the testcase.
There are a few projects that depend upon a specific ordering of asm
directives. Chris and I believe that they're
On Oct 20, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Bill Wendling wrote:
On Oct 20, 2007, at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
Don't branch fold inline asm statements.
I'm curious to know why not... I didn't understand the
problem with the testcase.
There are a few projects that depend upon a specific ordering of
On Oct 20, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
This is just a really ugly compatibility hack. Apparently GCC
doesn't do cross jumping of inline asm statements as much as we do,
and we've hit a significant body of code that depends on this not
happening.
The code in question is clearly