Hi Martin
On 25/05/18 10:45, Martin Liška wrote:
On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
unfortunately, it didn't
On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
> Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
> It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:
On 05/24/2018 02:28 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
going to install the patch so that
I can carry on more
On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:
* The switchlower -> switchlowe
Hi Martin,
> On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>> On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
> going to install the patch so that
> I can carry on more complex pa
On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:
* The switchlower -> switchlower1 renames in the dg-final* lines
(attached)
Hi Martin,
>>> Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
>>> It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
>>
>> unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:
>>
>> * The switchlower -> switchlower1 renames in the dg-final* lines
>> (attached) are still necessary
On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
going to install the patch so that
I can carry on more complex patches based on this on
Hi Martin,
> On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
>>> going to install the patch so that
>>> I can carry on more complex patches based on this one.
>>
>> it seems you didn't properly test the test
On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
>> going to install the patch so that
>> I can carry on more complex patches based on this one.
>
> it seems you didn't properly test the testsuite part: I see
>
Hi Martin,
> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
> going to install the patch so that
> I can carry on more complex patches based on this one.
it seems you didn't properly test the testsuite part: I see
+UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c scan-tree-
On 01/15/2018 12:22 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> Can you please post CSiBE numbers? Ideally throwing in gcc-3.4.6 numbers too?
>
> thanks,
Hi.
I've just retested the patch and looks fine. There are numbers of CSiBE. I'm
sorry I don't
have such old version of GCC:
+---
On 10 January 2018 15:59:28 CET, "Martin Liška" wrote:
>On 01/10/2018 02:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
On 01/10/2018 02:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Thank you Jeff for very ve
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
Hello.
Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning
t
On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning
>>> to do
>>> follow-up of this patch that will include clusteri
On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning
>> to do
>> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests and jump
>> tables.
>> Maybe that w
On 20 September 2017 17:00:13 CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm
>planning to do
>> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests
>and jump tables.
>> Maybe
On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning to
> do
> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests and jump
> tables.
> Maybe that will make aforementioned issues even more difficult
On 09/16/2017 12:19 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/14/2017 06:17 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> As mentioned at Cauldron 2017, second step in switch lowering should be
>> massive
>> simplification in code that does expansion of balanced tree. Basically it
>> includes
>> VRP and DCE, which w
On 09/14/2017 06:17 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> As mentioned at Cauldron 2017, second step in switch lowering should be
> massive
> simplification in code that does expansion of balanced tree. Basically it
> includes
> VRP and DCE, which we can for obvious reason do by our own.
>
> The
21 matches
Mail list logo
