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: [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


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