On 15/07/2015 18:01, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > So unless Martin objects consider the patch approved for trunk and for
> > backporting after 5.2 is released and trunk shows no issues.
> >
> > Martin - can you take care of committing if you are fine with it?
>
> I have commitred the patch to trunk
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:49:05PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 13/07/2015 15:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> It would be nice to have a patch that can be backported to the GCC 5 branch
> >> as well. We can improve this on
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:49:05PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 13/07/2015 15:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> It would be nice to have a patch that can be backported to the GCC 5 branch
> >> as well. We can improve this on
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 13/07/2015 15:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>> It would be nice to have a patch that can be backported to the GCC 5 branch
>> as well. We can improve this on trunk as followup,no?
>
> The patch I've already posted can be backported. O:-)
On 13/07/2015 15:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> It would be nice to have a patch that can be backported to the GCC 5 branch
> as well. We can improve this on trunk as followup,no?
The patch I've already posted can be backported. O:-)
Paolo
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:47:23PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13/07/2015 14:34, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > You might want to use Martin's shiny new
>> > function_summary class in symbol-summary.c. That is a mechanism
>> > specifi
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:47:23PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 13/07/2015 14:34, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > You might want to use Martin's shiny new
> > function_summary class in symbol-summary.c. That is a mechanism
> > specifically designed to append to a cgraph_node information specifi
On 13/07/2015 14:34, Martin Jambor wrote:
> You might want to use Martin's shiny new
> function_summary class in symbol-summary.c. That is a mechanism
> specifically designed to append to a cgraph_node information specific
> to an optimization pass (or two, as ipa-cp and ipa-inline already both
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:13:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 13/07/2015 13:55, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > I can't approve it, but FWIW, I'm generally fine with the patch.
> > Although the original idea was to share one func_body_info in between
> > ipa-cp and ipa-inline analyses, th
On 13/07/2015 13:55, Martin Jambor wrote:
> I can't approve it, but FWIW, I'm generally fine with the patch.
> Although the original idea was to share one func_body_info in between
> ipa-cp and ipa-inline analyses, this is certainly better than what we
> have now and perhaps even good enough gene
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:39:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> From: bonz...@gnu.org
>
> In this PR, a lot of time is spent doing the same ipa_load_from_parm_agg
> query over and over. Luckily a memoization scheme is already there, it's
> just not used by ipa-inline-analysis.c. The patch
11 matches
Mail list logo
