Hello,
I have a PHI node that defines a variable that is used in 1 statement. I
then delete the statement. I think I need to update the PHI node to no
longer reference that variable. I looked through some code and I don't see
a way to just remove an element from a PHI node and I see in the file
o
On 12/15/21 12:23 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 12/14/21 18:55, Martin Sebor wrote:
Thanks a lot for the feedback! I'll need some time to fully
digest it. Just a few clarifying comments to explain what
I'm after.
Andrew, to improve the context of the late warnings I'm trying
to see how to ge
On 12/14/21 18:55, Martin Sebor wrote:
Andrew, to improve the context of the late warnings I'm trying
to see how to get the execution path(s) leading from function
entry up to a statement. For example, for the code below I'd
like to "collect" and show the three conditionals in the context
of the
Hi all,
FYI The next RISC-V GNU Toolchain Biweekly Sync is canceled because
there were not enough new topics in the past weeks. The next meeting
is scheduled for Jan 13, 2022. We will also skip the meeting on Dec 30.
--
Best wishes,
Wei Wu (吴伟)
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 12:43, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Dec 2021, at 12:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 12:22, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >>
> >> On 15.12.21 12:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> >>
> >>> Iain pointed out a drawback of not having the regres
> On 15 Dec 2021, at 12:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 12:22, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>
>> On 15.12.21 12:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>>
>>> Iain pointed out a drawback of not having the regression info in the
>>> Summary. Currently it does draw your atten
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 12:22, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> On 15.12.21 12:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Iain pointed out a drawback of not having the regression info in the
> > Summary. Currently it does draw your attention when looking at the
> > results of a bugzilla search. Andrew noted t
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 12:15, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15/12/2021 11:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On IRC we've been discussing some changes to Bugzilla that would give
> > a bit more structure to how we label and process regressions.
> >
> > Currently we add something like "[9/1
On 15.12.21 12:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
Iain pointed out a drawback of not having the regression info in the
Summary. Currently it does draw your attention when looking at the
results of a bugzilla search. Andrew noted that bug aliases are
automatically added to the summary, e.g. https
On 12/14/21 17:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
git clone gcc.gnu.org:/home/gccadmin/hooks-bin
Works for me as well, thanks!
So as Joseph mentioned, we are really prepared for the transition
as there's only the email_to.py script that can be ported.
Cheers,
Martin
On 15/12/2021 11:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On IRC we've been discussing some changes to Bugzilla that would give
a bit more structure to how we label and process regressions.
Currently we add something like "[9/10/11/12 Regression]" to the start
of the summary, and then edit that whe
On IRC we've been discussing some changes to Bugzilla that would give
a bit more structure to how we label and process regressions.
Currently we add something like "[9/10/11/12 Regression]" to the start
of the summary, and then edit that when it's fixed on a branch, when
forking a new release bran
13 matches
Mail list logo
