On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> NB, the whole reassoc code needs a re-write to avoid the excessive >>> stmt modifications when it does nothing. So I'd very much rather avoid >>> adding anything to reassoc until that rewrite happened. >> >> IMHO it's fair to Easwaran to hold up a patch for a hypothetical >> rewrite. Do you have a plan for this rewrite in mind? If not, and >> Easwaran's patch does something good (I haven't looked at it to tell) >> then it seems to me it should be considered for including. > > Did you mean "fair" or "unfair"?
Oops! I meant "not fair". Ciao! Steven
