On 6/20/24 4:36 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Am 20.06.2024 um 16:05 schrieb Andrew MacLeod :
On 6/20/24 05:31, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi.
I came around to this, and whipped up the proposed patch. However, it
does seem a bit verbose, and I'm wond
> Am 20.06.2024 um 16:05 schrieb Andrew MacLeod :
>
>
>> On 6/20/24 05:31, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I came around to this, and whipped up the proposed patch. However, it
>>> does seem a bit verbose, and I'm wondering if it's c
On 6/20/24 05:31, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi.
I came around to this, and whipped up the proposed patch. However, it
does seem a bit verbose, and I'm wondering if it's cleaner to just
leave things as they are.
The attached patch passes tests and ther
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I came around to this, and whipped up the proposed patch. However, it
> does seem a bit verbose, and I'm wondering if it's cleaner to just
> leave things as they are.
>
> The attached patch passes tests and there's no difference in
> performa
Hi.
I came around to this, and whipped up the proposed patch. However, it
does seem a bit verbose, and I'm wondering if it's cleaner to just
leave things as they are.
The attached patch passes tests and there's no difference in
performance. I am wondering, whether it's better to get rid of
all/
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> BTW, I'm not opposed to this patch. Thank you for tracking this down,
> and feel free to commit as is if y'all PMs agree it's OK. I just
> wanted to know if there's a better way going forward. I can certainly
> put it on my TODO list once stage1 opens
BTW, I'm not opposed to this patch. Thank you for tracking this down,
and feel free to commit as is if y'all PMs agree it's OK. I just
wanted to know if there's a better way going forward. I can certainly
put it on my TODO list once stage1 opens again.
And no, there probably isn't an obstack fo
> Am 08.04.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Aldy Hernandez :
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 6:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>>
Am 08.04.2024 um 18:09 schrieb Aldy Hernandez :
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:54 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:40:23PM +0200, Aldy
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 6:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 08.04.2024 um 18:09 schrieb Aldy Hernandez :
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:54 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:40:23PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> PR middle-end/114604
> *
> Am 08.04.2024 um 18:09 schrieb Aldy Hernandez :
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:54 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:40:23PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
PR middle-end/114604
* gimple-range.cc (enable_ranger): Initialize the global
bi
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:54 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:40:23PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > PR middle-end/114604
> > > * gimple-range.cc (enable_ranger): Initialize the global
> > > bitmap obstack.
> > > (disable_ranger): Release it
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:40:23PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > PR middle-end/114604
> > * gimple-range.cc (enable_ranger): Initialize the global
> > bitmap obstack.
> > (disable_ranger): Release it.
> > ---
> > gcc/gimple-range.cc | 4
> > 1 file changed,
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11:50 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following fixes ranger bitmap allocation when invoked from IPA
> context where the global bitmap obstack possibly isn't initialized.
> Instead of trying to use one of the ranger obstacks the following
> simply initializes the global bit
13 matches
Mail list logo