From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31370 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2010 16:13:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 31362 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2010 16:13:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:13:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6JGCuVl017240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:12:56 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6JGCtVL029843; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:12:56 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.30] ([10.3.113.30]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6JGCsjj024854; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:12:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4C447985.4010606@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:13:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Mitchell CC: Paolo Bonzini , Bernd Schmidt , GCC Patches Subject: Re: New optimization for reload_combine References: <4C4035C3.9080305@codesourcery.com> <4C40B6E3.8000908@gnu.org> <4C44791A.8050406@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4C44791A.8050406@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg01502.txt.bz2 On 07/19/10 10:11, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >>> Does postreload.c fall under reload? If not, would someone approve this? >>> >> Well, it was part of reload1.c until a while ago... >> > Without commenting on the patch (which Jeff has already reviewed), I > think that postreload should fall in the scope of "reload maintainer". > Does anyone object? > Nope. Sounds quite reasonable to me. jeff