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: [trans-mem] cgraph edges vs function cloning

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:24:11 -0700
Subject: Re: [trans-mem] cgraph edges vs function cloning
References: <4A67BF29.9090208@twiddle.net> <20090723172828.GA20017@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <4A6E333E.7060402@redhat.com> <20090728171601.GB7178@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <4A6F38F3.5020402@redhat.com> <4A6F8914.30705@redhat.com> <20090729072854.GA4808@alvy.suse.cz>

On 07/29/2009 12:28 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:

That is not really true.

Whee. I guess I really didn't understand what was going on.

At present I'm testing the following minimal patch to fix
the double lookup problem I mentioned.  It's uglier than
it ought to be because of incorrect indentation in the
original.

r~

Attachment: zz
Description: Text document

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