tio_p)), that's an odd change.
>
> Could you please elaborate this because I think I don't understand you.
> The condition !(ok_with_ratio_p || ok_without_ratio_p) checks whether
> base + index [<< scale] is supported or not. It doesn't check whether
> base + offs
ould you please elaborate this because I think I don't understand you.
The condition !(ok_with_ratio_p || ok_without_ratio_p) checks whether
base + index [<< scale] is supported or not. It doesn't check whether
base + offset is supported. For example, the code on the commit
a49541
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 5:32 PM Aleksandar Rakic
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think I managed to fix indentation from the previous version.
>
> When comparing the tables showing the candidates for the group 1 before
> and after applying this patch, it can be observed that complexities for
> the candidates
Todorovic; Jovan Dmitrovic
Subject: Re: [Bug tree-optimization/109429] [PATCH v2] ivopts: fixed
complexities
A kind remind/ping on the patch.
Kind regards,
Aleksandar Rakić
From: Aleksandar Rakic
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 5:32 PM
To: richard.guent
Todorovic; Jovan Dmitrovic
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109429] [PATCH v2] ivopts: fixed complexities
Hi,
I think I managed to fix indentation from the previous version.
When comparing the tables showing the candidates for the group 1 before
and after applying this patch, it can be observed that
-optimization/109429] [PATCH v2] ivopts: fixed complexities
Hi,
I think I managed to fix indentation from the previous version.
When comparing the tables showing the candidates for the group 1 before
and after applying this patch, it can be observed that complexities for
the candidates where the
Hi,
I think I managed to fix indentation from the previous version.
When comparing the tables showing the candidates for the group 1 before
and after applying this patch, it can be observed that complexities for
the candidates where the computation depends on the invariant
expressions or the inv
