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] |
On 19/01/15 08:53, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:On Jan 14, 2015, at 3:50 AM, Tejas Belagod <tejas.belagod@arm.com> wrote:As agreed here (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971), please can I reverse Andrew's patch out(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02916.html)?Ok. Unless someone objects to a reversion like this, when the author of a patch says it should be revertedâ thatâs all the approval it needs, though, people can always ask for a review for any reason they want.And now this reversal needs to be reverted. Because the conditional compare optimization went back in. I figured the optimization would go back in and that is why I did not act on reverting my patch that fast. The conditional compare patch went in a day after this reversal went in ;).
Yes, now committed r219838 as obvious. Thanks, Tejas.
Attachment:
test_frame_rev.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |