This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] proper dataflow block visitation order
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>>>> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>>> Bootstrapped on i686 with c/c++ and no regression.
>>>>>> While this is not exactly a regression,
>>>>>> I'd like to commit this to 4.3 -
>>>>> The patch may be okay for 4.3 with the changes Steven suggested.
>>>>> However, I'd like to see also an assembly language output comparison
>>>>> for some .i files (e.g. cc1 or SPEC).
>>>>>
>>>>> Paolo
>>>> we are in lock down mode. i believe that only one of the release
>>>> managers can approve this for 4.3.
>>> It depends whether you consider it a regression. All maintainers can
>>> approve regression fixes.
>>>
>>> Paolo
>> i tend to be more conservative here: 4 percent extra node visits is
>> not significant. there is no test case that will fail because of this
>> issue, nor any code that will be generated any differently.
>
> I see -- indeed I asked for assembly language comparison because you
> don't expect difference. Mark in the past was more permissive for
> compile-timgressions; the current release managers might disagree.
>
> Paolo
note that seonbae claims a 4% difference in number of node visits. this
will translate into almost no significant difference in compile time.
I am all for the patch going into 4.4 with stevens changes. But I do
not see the need for pushing this on what is now a compiler with no p1
regressions.
kenny