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: Ping: Patch for 21562

From: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
To: law at redhat dot com
Cc: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 17:18:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Ping: Patch for 21562
References: <ccef95402f3d238cc64a25b4ad50b799@apple.com> <1117152484.12471.270.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On May 26, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Jeffrey A Law wrote:

On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 10:08 -0700, Dale Johannesen wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01888.html
It really seems to me that the problem is verify_flow and expand
really need to be fixed.  Any code that assumes block 0 is a
successor of ENTRY is broken.
Is there some fundamental reason why we can't fix verify_flow and
expand?

Not that I know of. Is there consensus that this is the right thing to do?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ping: Patch for 21562
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- Ping: Patch for 21562
  - From: Dale Johannesen
- Re: Ping: Patch for 21562
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

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