From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 76226 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2015 14:26:05 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 74847 invoked by uid 89); 25 Nov 2015 14:26:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ig0-f180.google.com Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-ig0-f180.google.com) (209.85.213.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:26:03 +0000 Received: by igvg19 with SMTP id g19so118205549igv.1 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 06:26:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.157.7 with SMTP id wi7mr4011936igb.63.1448461561045; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 06:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.209.7 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 06:26:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5654C2DB.4080308@redhat.com> References: <20151119142854.GE42296@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <564DEECC.3000609@redhat.com> <20151119160613.GF42296@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <5654C2DB.4080308@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Get rid of insn-codes.h in optabs-tree.c From: Ilya Enkovich To: Jeff Law Cc: Bernd Schmidt , gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg03074.txt.bz2 2015-11-24 23:04 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 11/19/2015 09:06 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> On 19 Nov 16:46, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> On 11/19/2015 03:28 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>>> >>>> This is a refactoring patch discussed in another thread [1]. It gets >>>> rid of CODE_FOR_nothing usage in optabs-tree.c by introducing boolean >>>> predicated in optabs-query. Bootstrapped and regtesed on >>>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. >>> >>> >>> Looks pretty reasonable, but I think we have to start saying "not now" >>> after >>> the end of stage 1. >> >> >> I send it now because Jeff considered this patch at early stage3. I can >> commit it at the next stage1 either. > > Yea. This turns out to be bigger than expected. Let's commit it in the > next stage1 if you're OK with that. Sure! Will delay until stage1. Thanks, Ilya > > Jeff >