On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 2:10 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Ping again.
OK.
> > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:55:24 +0200
> >
> > > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:59:14 +0200
> > [...]
> >
> > > So again: Approvers: pdf output
Ping again.
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:55:24 +0200
>
> > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:59:14 +0200
> [...]
>
> > So again: Approvers: pdf output reviewed. Ok to commit?
> > -- >8 --
> > I was a bit surprised when my newly-added define_peeph
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:59:14 +0200
[...]
> So again: Approvers: pdf output reviewed. Ok to commit?
> -- >8 --
> I was a bit surprised when my newly-added define_peephole2 didn't
> match, but it was because it was expected to partially match the
> generated output
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:16:36 +0200
> From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> On 19 April 2023 21:21:18 CEST, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
> >Hi H-P!
> >
> >This begs the question iff now (i fear it's not), upon
> >successful match(es), the whole peepholes get re-run
> >again per BB (ATM?), e
[+list]
On 19 April 2023 21:21:18 CEST, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
>Hi H-P!
>
>This begs the question iff now (i fear it's not), upon successful match(es),
>the whole peepholes get re-run again per BB (ATM?), exposing more
>opportunities?
>If not, would we want to retry, at least for -fexp
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:06:27 +0200
>
> Patch retracted, at least temporarily. My "understanding"
> may be clouded by looking at an actual bug. Sigh.
Mea culpa. I was looking at the result of one
define_peephole2 and thinking it was due to another, and
also tric
