On 11/02/2013 01:51 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 11/02/2013 11:31 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 11/02/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 11/02/2013 07:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The first part of this
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 11/02/2013 11:31 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>>> On 11/02/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 11/02/2013 07:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The first part of this is a simple type mismatch --
>
On 11/02/2013 11:31 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 11/02/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 11/02/2013 07:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The first part of this is a simple type mismatch -- get_max_loop_iterations
returns a widest_int a
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 11/02/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>>> On 11/02/2013 07:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The first part of this is a simple type mismatch -- get_max_loop_iterations
returns a widest_int aka max_wide_int -- and I'd have inst
On 11/02/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 11/02/2013 07:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The first part of this is a simple type mismatch -- get_max_loop_iterations
returns a widest_int aka max_wide_int -- and I'd have installed it as
obvious. The second part i
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 11/02/2013 07:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The first part of this is a simple type mismatch -- get_max_loop_iterations
>> returns a widest_int aka max_wide_int -- and I'd have installed it as
>> obvious. The second part isn't as obvious though. The old code stor
On 11/02/2013 07:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The first part of this is a simple type mismatch -- get_max_loop_iterations
returns a widest_int aka max_wide_int -- and I'd have installed it as
obvious. The second part isn't as obvious though. The old code stored
the maximum iterations as: