> From: Alan Lawrence
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:22:13 +
(Regarding some incidentally failing tests)
> Hmm, I still see these passing, both natively on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and
> with a cross-build. hf implies --with-float=hard, right?
(Since you mention it...)
Oddly, it doesn't; you
On 19 January 2016 at 14:22, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 19/01/16 09:46, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 19 January 2016 at 04:05, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Alan Lawrence
>>> wrote:
This version changes the test cases to fix failures on some platforms,
On 19/01/16 09:46, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 19 January 2016 at 04:05, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This version changes the test cases to fix failures on some platforms, by
rewriting the initializers so that they aren't pushed out to the constant pool.
On 19 January 2016 at 04:05, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>> This version changes the test cases to fix failures on some platforms, by
>> rewriting the initializers so that they aren't pushed out to the constant
>> pool.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>>
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> This version changes the test cases to fix failures on some platforms, by
> rewriting the initializers so that they aren't pushed out to the constant
> pool.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * tree-ssa-scopedtables.c (avail_expr_hash): Hash ME
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/05/2016 09:29 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> Without looking at the patch, ARRAY_REFs can have non-constant indices
>>> which get_ref_base_and_extend handles conservative. You should make
>>> sure to not regress here.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for t
On 01/05/2016 09:29 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
Without looking at the patch, ARRAY_REFs can have non-constant indices
which get_ref_base_and_extend handles conservative. You should make
sure to not regress here.
Thanks for the warning - my understanding is that in such a case,
get_ref_base_and_e
On 05/01/16 07:29, Richard Biener wrote:
On January 4, 2016 8:08:17 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/21/2015 06:13 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This is a respin of patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03266.html and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03267.html, whic
On January 4, 2016 8:08:17 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 12/21/2015 06:13 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>> This is a respin of patches
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03266.html and
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03267.html, which were
>> "too quickly" approved be
On 12/21/2015 06:13 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This is a respin of patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03266.html and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03267.html, which were
"too quickly" approved before concerns with efficiency were pointed out.
I tried to change th
On 12/24/2015 04:55 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This version changes the test cases to fix failures on some platforms, by
rewriting the initializers so that they aren't pushed out to the constant pool.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-ssa-scopedtables.c (avail_expr_hash): Hash MEM_REF and ARRAY_REF
This version changes the test cases to fix failures on some platforms, by
rewriting the initializers so that they aren't pushed out to the constant pool.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-ssa-scopedtables.c (avail_expr_hash): Hash MEM_REF and ARRAY_REF
using get_ref_base_and_extent.
(
This is a respin of patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03266.html and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03267.html, which were
"too quickly" approved before concerns with efficiency were pointed out.
I tried to change the hashing just in tree-ssa-dom.c using C++ subc
13 matches
Mail list logo
