On 09/11/2019 06:01, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Richard Earnshaw (lists) :
Which makes me wonder if, given a commit log of the form:
2019-10-30 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92275
* tree-vect-loop-manip.c (slpeel_update_phi_nodes_for_loops):
Copy all loop-close
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 03:32:06PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> I wrote this script for two reasons
>1) To learn some python (finally I had a good reason to go and do
> this :)
So I am last now? Heh.
>2) To try to improve some of our legacy commit messages, especially
On 18/11/2019 15:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 03:32:06PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
I wrote this script for two reasons
1) To learn some python (finally I had a good reason to go and do
this :)
So I am last now? Heh.
2) To try to improve som
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 18/11/2019 15:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >That immediately shows some of the shortcomings of this approach: the
> >subject line is much too long, but more importantly, it doesn't make
> >much sense: it
Since today sometimes in the morning I'm not able to send test summaries
to gcc-testres...@gcc.gnu.org anymore.
gcc-testresu...@gcc.gnu.org:
SMTP error from remote server for TEXT command, host: gcc.gnu.org
(209.132.180.131) reason: 552 spam score exceeded threshold
Does anybody else see Thiss is
On 11/18/19 12:20 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
On 18/11/2019 15:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
That immediately shows some of the shortcomings of this approac
On 11/18/19 12:23 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:20 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
On 18/11/2019 15:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
That immediately
On 18/11/2019 17:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 18/11/2019 15:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
That immediately shows some of the shortcomings of this approach: the
subject line is much too long, but more impo
On 18/11/2019 17:25, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:23 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:20 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
On 18/11/2019 15:55,
On 18/11/2019 17:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 18/11/2019 17:25, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:23 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:20 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +,
On 11/18/19 12:46 PM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 18/11/2019 17:25, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:23 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:20 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +000
On 18/11/2019 17:55, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:46 PM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 18/11/2019 17:25, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:23 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:20 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On 11/18/19 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richa
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> Well a lot of that is a property of the conversion tool. git svn does a
> relatively poor job of anything other than straight history (I believe it just
> ignores the non-linear information. I don't believe any tool can recreate
> informatio
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 05:38:14PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 18/11/2019 17:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >I think that non-obviously-wrong-but-still-wrong info is not something
> >we should introduce. And, I think this will happen a *lot*.
> >
> >Maybe you can just put in artif
On 18/11/2019 18:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 05:38:14PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 18/11/2019 17:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> I think that non-obviously-wrong-but-still-wrong info is not something
>>> we should introduce. And, I think this will ha
On 18/11/2019 18:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 05:38:14PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 18/11/2019 17:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> I think that non-obviously-wrong-but-still-wrong info is not something
>>> we should introduce. And, I think this will ha
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:21:22PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 18/11/2019 18:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > PR target/92140: clang vs gcc optimizing with adc/sbb
> > PR fortran/91926: assumed rank optional
> > PR tree-optimization/91532: [SVE] Redundant predicated store in
> > g
Greetings Richard,
Seems some of these things can either be closed or discussed here:
Add support to a multithread environment to Garbage Collector:
This may not matter as memory is in bulk at the beginning of passes.
I've benchmarked
it and its less than 5% on the GCC test farm machines wit
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool <
seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:21:22PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > On 18/11/2019 18:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > PR target/92140: clang vs gcc optimizing with adc/sbb
> > > PR fortran/91926:
On 18/11/2019 20:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool <
> seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:21:22PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2019 18:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
PR target/92140: clang vs gcc
20 matches
Mail list logo
