> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:50 PM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: Bin.Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw
> Subject: Re: Ping^2: [PATCH]Remove duplicate check on BRANCH_COST
Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:20 PM
>> To: Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Cc: Richard Earnshaw
>> Subject: Re: Ping^2: [PATCH]Remove duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in fold-
>> const.c
>>
>> Sorry, I mis-sent this offline.
>>
>> On Tue, Se
Ping^2: [PATCH]Remove duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in fold-
> const.c
>
> Sorry, I mis-sent this offline.
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It's not ok (I btw fail to see the patch in this thread). The
> >>> curr
Sorry, I mis-sent this offline.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not ok (I btw fail to see the patch in this thread). The current
>>> way LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT is implemented/used should instead
>>> be changed to always match the pattern
>>>
>>> LOGICAL
>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>> From: Richard Earnshaw
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:19 PM
>>>>>>> To: Andrew Pinski
>>>>>>> Cc: Bin Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>&
From: Richard Earnshaw
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:19 PM
>>>>>> To: Andrew Pinski
>>>>>> Cc: Bin Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Remove duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in
>>>>&g
July 26, 2012 9:19 PM
>>>>> To: Andrew Pinski
>>>>> Cc: Bin Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Remove duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in
>>>>> fold-const.c
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/07/12 11:
Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Remove duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in
>>>> fold-const.c
>>>>
>>>> On 26/07/12 11:27, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>&g
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Richard Earnshaw
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:19 PM
>> > To: Andrew Pinski
>> > Cc: Bin Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PA
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Earnshaw
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:19 PM
> > To: Andrew Pinski
> > Cc: Bin Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH]Remove duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in
> > fold-const.c
>
Ping.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:19 PM
> To: Andrew Pinski
> Cc: Bin Cheng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Remove duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in fold-const.c
>
> On 26/07/12 11:27, Andrew Pinsk
On 26/07/12 11:27, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch removes the duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in fold_truth_andor.
>> The BRANCH_COST condition removed is a duplicate of the default definition
>> of LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT.
>> All
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch removes the duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in fold_truth_andor.
> The BRANCH_COST condition removed is a duplicate of the default definition
> of LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT.
> All current targets (mips and rs6000) that provide
Hi,
This patch removes the duplicate check on BRANCH_COST in fold_truth_andor.
The BRANCH_COST condition removed is a duplicate of the default definition
of LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT.
All current targets (mips and rs6000) that provide non-default definitions
of LOGICAL_OP_SHORT_CIRCUIT set it to
14 matches
Mail list logo
