Hi,
I've copied mainline to pretty-ipa branch killing all the changes that was left
unmerged there.
I intend to use it for IPA and LTO related development to be merged at next
stage1, immediately
for the inliner related cleanups we seems to be cummulating at the mainling
list.
I would lik
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> I would hope to retire that branch, since it has gained a lot of
> dust and also a lot of things has been renamed while merging to mainline
> making it outdated.
I assume you will update svn.html accordingly once this is done...
> At the end of stage 1 I w
Hi,
thanks to Diego, Andrew (MacLeod), Daniel and Roger's effort on
reviewing IPA branch merge patches, I hope to commit after re-testing
the patch to enable IPA-SSA today. This means that the main part of
IPA-branch has been merged. There are still features on IPA branch that
I hope to f
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/09/2006 01:55:24:
> Razya Ladelsky wrote:
>
> > Except for new optimizations, IPCP (currently on mainline) should also
be
> > transformed to SSA.
> > IPCP in SSA code exists on IPA branch, and will be submitted to
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/09/2006 01:55:24:
> Razya Ladelsky wrote:
>
> > Except for new optimizations, IPCP (currently on mainline) should also
be
> > transformed to SSA.
> > IPCP in SSA code exists on IPA branch, and will be submitted to
Jan Hubicka wrote:
I intended to write the overview in a way to express that some work will
be needed.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I think your plans all sound
reasonable. I would definitely encourage you to start preparing patches
and submitting them for review -- and hounding
Razya Ladelsky wrote:
Except for new optimizations, IPCP (currently on mainline) should also be
transformed to SSA.
IPCP in SSA code exists on IPA branch, and will be submitted to GCC4.3
after IPA branch
is committed and some testsuite regressions failing with
IPCP+versioning+inlining are
Razya Ladelsky/Haifa/IBM wrote on 27/09/2006 14:27:18:
>
>
>
>
> > Jan --
> >
> > I'm trying to plan for GCC 4.3 Stage 1. The IPA branch project is
> > clearly a good thing, and you've been working on it for a long time,
so
> > I&#
> Jan --
>
> I'm trying to plan for GCC 4.3 Stage 1. The IPA branch project is
> clearly a good thing, and you've been working on it for a long time, so
> I'd really like to get it into GCC 4.3. However, I'm a little
> concerned, in reading the proje
Jan --
I'm trying to plan for GCC 4.3 Stage 1. The IPA branch project is
clearly a good thing, and you've been working on it for a long time, so
I'd really like to get it into GCC 4.3. However, I'm a little
concerned, in reading the project description, that it'
On Saturday 06 August 2005 08:14, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Patch from Michael Matz
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-07/msg00331.html) may partly fixes
> > the multiple decls problems.
>
> That will only help with the fortran proble
> On Saturday 06 August 2005 08:14, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Patch from Michael Matz
> > > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-07/msg00331.html) may partly fixes
> > > the multiple decls problems.
> >
> > That will only help with
On Aug 5, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Canqun Yang wrote:
Hi,
Patch from Michael Matz
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-07/msg00331.html) may partly fixes
the multiple decls problems.
That will only help with the fortran problem, the C++ front-end have
the same
issue. The C front-end have still
Hi,
Patch from Michael Matz (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-07/msg00331.html)
may partly fixes
the multiple decls problems.
I've tested and tuned this patch. It works, small functions can be inlined
after DECL_INLINE
flags (build_function_decl in trans-decl.c) have been set for them. The
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> I guess the web pages should be updated with something like the attached?
Yes...
> This looks fine to me. Thanks! Perhaps even cvs.html should mention
> that tree-profiling was almost fully merged and retired?
...and, yes. ;-)
Minor comments for the o
> On Thursday 04 August 2005 19:12, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I've branches the IPA branch yesterday and re-directed current SPEC
> > > testers running tree-profiling branch (now officially retired ;) to it.
> > > ( http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC/
On Thursday 04 August 2005 19:12, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've branches the IPA branch yesterday and re-directed current SPEC
> > testers running tree-profiling branch (now officially retired ;) to it.
> > ( http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC/amd64 ).
>
> Hi,
> I've branches the IPA branch yesterday and re-directed current SPEC
> testers running tree-profiling branch (now officially retired ;) to it.
> ( http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC/amd64 ).
> The branch should be used for interprocedural optimization projects that
> has ser
Hi,
I've branches the IPA branch yesterday and re-directed current SPEC
testers running tree-profiling branch (now officially retired ;) to it.
( http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC/amd64 ).
The branch should be used for interprocedural optimization projects that
has serious chance to get into 4.
19 matches
Mail list logo
