On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:06:41AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks for the review. When writing a reply I realized I indeed made
>> a mistake or two in the part concerning prev_base and the code was not
>> what it intended to
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:06:41AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the review. When writing a reply I realized I indeed made
> a mistake or two in the part concerning prev_base and the code was not
> what it intended to be. I'll re-write it today.
OK, this is it. The part in t
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > thanks for the review. When writing a reply I realized I indeed made
>> > a mistake or two
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for the review. When writing a reply I realized I indeed made
> > a mistake or two in the part concerning prev_base and the code was not
> > what it
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the review. When writing a reply I realized I indeed made
> a mistake or two in the part concerning prev_base and the code was not
> what it intended to be. I'll re-write it today.
>
> Nevertheless, I also have a questio
Hi,
thanks for the review. When writing a reply I realized I indeed made
a mistake or two in the part concerning prev_base and the code was not
what it intended to be. I'll re-write it today.
Nevertheless, I also have a question regarding a different place of
the patch:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:02:42PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:24:20AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> >> The get_pointer_alig
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:02:42PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:24:20AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> The get_pointer_alignment function can indicate that it does not know
> >> what the a
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:24:20AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> The get_pointer_alignment function can indicate that it does not know
>> what the alignment should be, and it always fills in worst-case values
>> for that case. W
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:24:20AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The get_pointer_alignment function can indicate that it does not know
> what the alignment should be, and it always fills in worst-case values
> for that case. We should not use these worst-case values to "optimize"
> the in
The get_pointer_alignment function can indicate that it does not know
what the alignment should be, and it always fills in worst-case values
for that case. We should not use these worst-case values to "optimize"
the interface of a function.
At minimum I think something like the following would be
11 matches
Mail list logo
