Hello guys,
I've checked that in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-11/msg00565.html with tiny obvious
fix
Thanks a lot for your inputs and comments!
Thanks, K
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 05:50 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> thanks for rev
On 11/15/2012 05:50 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi guys,
> thanks for review. Comments along with updated patch are below.
Version 6 is now ok. Please apply.
r~
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Which brings us to the question of what to do with the patch for 4.8.
> > It's true that you made the deadline for stage1 closure. But there will
> > be no users of this feature, so it begs the question of why we should
> > apply it now. Have you a co
On 11/16/2012 03:21 AM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote:
> Maybe we should introduce a
> new gen-utility which should be used only for dumping md-files and add
> a new target into makefile to invoke it,
This is exactly what I suggested somewhere up-thread.
r~
>> Yeah, one or other way to being able to debug what exactly has been
>> performed during the iterator expansion is certainly desirable for the
>> future.
> We actually have internal machinery for dumping MDs with expanded
> iterators and substs, but this looks really kinda hack now.
> We're going
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 01:03:14PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Note that your indentation is off in places.
>
> > + while ((start = strchr (end, '<')) && (end = strchr (end, '>')))
Above too when you mention it.
> Looking at all this, I'm wondering if we shouldn't split out all of thi
On Nov 13, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Looking at all this, I'm wondering if we shouldn't split out all of this
> macro/include processing to a separate pass. Perform the preprocessing
> once, early, leaving the processed result in the build directory. Then
> run the original/tr
> + for (elem = other_queue; elem ; elem = elem->next)
> + {
Note that your indentation is off in places.
> + /* We are parsing DEFINE_SUBST_ATTR, which could cause generation
> + of DEFINE_ATTR for introduced DEFINE_SUBST. It doesn't happen
> + if such DEFINE_ATTR has already b
Hello guys!
This is a PING. Could you pls have a look?
Thanks, K
>
> Is it OK?
>
> Thanks, K
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> But... I don't really understand it, so here's some feedback on
> >> the documentation: Regarding the language, a definite article is
>
> Patch with fixed doc is attached. Changelog is the same
>
> Is it OK?
The structure is much improved and q
> Sounds great, (I think) this is something I've longed to see
> ever since I saw the iterator machinery (thanks, Richard S!) and
> wanted to do structural replacements just as easily.
Thanks!
> But... I don't really understand it, so here's some feedback on
> the documentation: Regarding the lang
(CC list trimmed.)
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch introduces a new RTL expression called define_subst and
> required by it define_subst_attr.
>
> The new feature allows to make MD-files more compact - it defines a
> rule by which a parser could generate modified versi
12 matches
Mail list logo
