On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/25/2016 04:43 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > If Bernd is fine with this, I'm happy to retract my patch and any
> > possible followups. I'm just interested in having no path causing a
> > possible out of bounds access. If your patch will do that, I'
On 03/25/2016 04:43 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
If Bernd is fine with this, I'm happy to retract my patch and any
possible followups. I'm just interested in having no path causing a
possible out of bounds access. If your patch will do that, I'm cool.
I'll need to see that patch first to comment
On 03/24/2016 10:02 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 03/24/2016 11:17 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 03/23/2016 10:25 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
It looks like this block of code is written by a helper function that is
really intended for other purposes
Hi,
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/24/2016 11:17 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > On 03/23/2016 10:25 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > It looks like this block of code is written by a helper function that is
> > > really intended for other purposes than for maximal_insn_latency. Migh
On 03/24/2016 11:17 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 03/23/2016 10:25 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
It looks like this block of code is written by a helper function that is
really intended for other purposes than for maximal_insn_latency. Might
be worth changing to
int insn_code = dfa_insn_code (as_a
On 03/23/2016 10:25 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 03/23/2016 07:32 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
int
maximal_insn_latency (rtx insn)
{
int insn_code;
if (insn == 0)
insn_code = DFA__ADVANCE_CYCLE;
else
{
insn_code = dfa_insn_code (as_a (insn));
if (insn_code > DFA
