On 11/12/13 06:56, Martin Jambor wrote:
+
+/* Given an expression, return an adjustment entry specifying the
+ transformation to be done on EXPR. If no suitable adjustment entry
+ was found, returns NULL.
+
+ If IGNORE_DEFAULT_DEF is set, consider SSA_NAMEs which are not a
+ default def
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:15:24AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 11/07/13 10:58, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> >Sorry for the delay. I'd just like to re-iterate one comment from my
> >previous email which is that I do not think tree-sra.c should export
> >any function to the outside world apa
On 11/07/13 10:58, Martin Jambor wrote:
Sorry for the delay. I'd just like to re-iterate one comment from my
previous email which is that I do not think tree-sra.c should export
any function to the outside world apart from the entry points of the
passes (yes, there is already build_ref_for_offs
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:37:03PM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 11/06/13 15:48, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:24:40PM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >>I have checked the following patch with the attached testcases that
> >>were previously ICEing, and with a handful of
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 08:17:13AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> But as discussed on IRC, I wonder whether we can do without the
> following in the attached patch:
>
> + tree repl = make_ssa_name (TREE_TYPE (retval), NULL);
> + stmt = gimple_build_assign (repl, ret
On 11/07/13 00:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:37:03PM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hmmm, good point. I've moved update_stmt and company to the caller,
and modified the caller to call regimplify_operands only for
GIMPLE_RETURN which is the special case.
Can't you (later) h
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:37:03PM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hmmm, good point. I've moved update_stmt and company to the caller,
> and modified the caller to call regimplify_operands only for
> GIMPLE_RETURN which is the special case.
Can't you (later) handle that without regimplification to
On 11/06/13 15:48, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:24:40PM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I have checked the following patch with the attached testcases that
were previously ICEing, and with a handful of handcrafted tests that
I checked manually (array references on lhs and rhs, ve
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:24:40PM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> I have checked the following patch with the attached testcases that
> were previously ICEing, and with a handful of handcrafted tests that
> I checked manually (array references on lhs and rhs, vectors of
> pointers, etc).
I'd like
