This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [vta->trunk] VTA merge
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jakub at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:02:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [vta->trunk] VTA merge
- References: <orskfb6zb2.fsf@huru.localdomain> <84fc9c000908300345s473a12f5u1b25ba054ca5f9a1@mail.gmail.com> <or7hwk9xxy.fsf@huru.localdomain> <84fc9c000908310230n3cbfc13bn1f83fcc6e0e688e9@mail.gmail.com> <ork50j8vks.fsf@huru.localdomain> <b609cb3b0909010816s56852dd1n76787aa0387a73d9@mail.gmail.com> <ormy5eikul.fsf@huru.localdomain> <orpra8y08y.fsf@huru.localdomain>
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Alexandre Oliva<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sep ?1, 2009, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's the patch I intend to check in tonight.
>
> In a last-minute (ok, make that last couple of hours ;-) review of the
> patch, I realized tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c was working too hard, dropping
> uses of an SSA DEF early, instead of letting them be propagated into
> debug stmts by the later-introduced code in release_ssa_name.
>
> This patch reverts that (hopefully) unnecessary change. ?Ok to install,
> if it passes regression testing?
Ok.
Can you please post new patches in new threads? It gets very confusing
and I'm not sure if new patches subsume others in this thread.
Thanks,
Richard.
>
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter ? ?http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
> Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ ? FSF Latin America board member
> Free Software Evangelist ? ? ?Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
>
>