On 10/01/14 07:04, Richard Biener wrote:
No, checking ->gimple_df would be odd indeed. The check seems to be coming from
Michas patch-set?
Correct.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 09/30/14 03:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm rearranging some code in Michael's original patch to minimize the
>>> difference with mainline.
>>>
>>> It seems that the chec
On 09/30/14 03:23, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I'm rearranging some code in Michael's original patch to minimize the
difference with mainline.
It seems that the check for DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (decl)->gimple_df, was
merely a check to see if we ha
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> I'm rearranging some code in Michael's original patch to minimize the
> difference with mainline.
>
> It seems that the check for DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (decl)->gimple_df, was
> merely a check to see if we had already set the FDE bits for the
I'm rearranging some code in Michael's original patch to minimize the
difference with mainline.
It seems that the check for DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (decl)->gimple_df, was
merely a check to see if we had already set the FDE bits for the decl in
question. I've moved the check inside the original D
