other gatekeeper could review it?
>
> --
> *From:* 朱庆 [mailto:zqing1...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:57 AM
>
> *To:* Mike Murphy
> *Cc:* open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Open64-devel] Assertion failure i
[mailto:zqing1...@gmail.com<mailto:zqing1...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 7:38 PM
To: Mike Murphy
Cc:
open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Assertion failure in wn_lower phase
Yes, you are right, I &#
...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 25, 2010 7:38 PM
> *To:* Mike Murphy
> *Cc:* open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Open64-devel] Assertion failure in wn_lower phase
>
> Yes, you are right, I 've added the new patch in the attchment to deleted
> all
hy
Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Assertion failure in wn_lower phase
Yes, you are right, I 've added the new patch in the attchment to deleted all
the whirl node after they were lowered. Could you help reviewing it again?
Thanks,
Zhuqing
在 2010年8月19日 下
Yes, you are right, I 've added the new patch in the attchment to deleted
all the whirl node after they were lowered. Could you help reviewing it
again?
Thanks,
Zhuqing
在 2010年8月19日 下午1:07，Mike Murphy 写道：
> Aren't there multiple calls to lower_complex_expr? In this case maybe
> only deleting a
Aren't there multiple calls to lower_complex_expr? In this case maybe only
deleting at the caller is right, but if other uses do not do the delete, and
you don't delete in the callee, then you will never delete.
From: 朱庆 [mailto:zqing1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednes
