On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:09:04PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this patch is very similar to the one I posted before
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg01377.html) except that
> > it is now adjusted to sit on top
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:09:04PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch is very similar to the one I posted before
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg01377.html) except that
> it is now adjusted to sit on top of the new one before this and does
> not ignore complex nu
Hi,
this patch is very similar to the one I posted before
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg01377.html) except that
it is now adjusted to sit on top of the new one before this and does
not ignore complex numbers.
There are more movmisalign_optab generations in this function. There
is
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch fixes misaligned reads through MEM_REFs such as the one in
> the testcase which currently fails on both sparc64 and ia64 (again,
> the array and the loop are there to cross ia64 cache line and fail
> there too). The patch has to be a
Hi,
this patch fixes misaligned reads through MEM_REFs such as the one in
the testcase which currently fails on both sparc64 and ia64 (again,
the array and the loop are there to cross ia64 cache line and fail
there too). The patch has to be applied last in the series so that
the current LHS expan
