This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] What? Another operand patch?

From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 08:20:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [patch] What? Another operand patch?
References: <1114800916.10172.5049.camel@pain> <20050429191136.GA7486@topo.toronto.redhat.com> <1114804187.29362.18.camel@linux.site>

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 15:49, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 15:11 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:55:17PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > 
> > > I'll play with it a bit on the weekend and see if I come up with any
> > > numbers I am more impressed with.
> > > 
> > Excellent!  I particularly like the no getting the statement
> > annotation to get to the operands nonsense.
> > 
> > Even if this doesn't give you the speedups you were looking for,
> > the improved interface is more than worth it.
> 
> I agree completely.
> 

Checked in just now. For the record, the final patch applied is
attached.


Bootstrapped on i686-pc-linux-gnu with no new regressions as of
checkin.  Same thing for powerpc64 on a snapshot from Friday.

ANdrew

Attachment: linked4.diff
Description: Text document

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]