This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: FW: patch to fix PR21617
- From: Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin at gmail dot com>
- To: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Zamyatin, Igor" <igor dot zamyatin at intel dot com>, "enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com" <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:32:40 +0400
- Subject: Re: FW: patch to fix PR21617
- References: <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D75690EC81F@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAKdSQZ=LeGPTAhHLRNLyxvVCgn4FhQsC60XeS=yO-SQo+a4tLQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F0C78FD.8050104@redhat.com> <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756910D3FD@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <4F1882A9.2090408@redhat.com> <4F19AED1.40008@redhat.com>
Unfortunately patch doesn't help neither for separate EEMBC_2_0 tests
nor for the whole benchmark.
Do you want me to do some debugging here?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/19/2012 03:52 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>
>> On 01/18/2012 02:30 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, we use Atom for EEMBC measurements.
>>>
>>> We'll be glad to help you with your findings.
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Unfortunately I tried several alternative patches but I did not find a
>> better solution (it is mostly code size degradation on CoreI7). ?Now I am
>> even thinking that the best action would have been ignoring the original PR.
>>
> Could you try the attached patch. ?It might work.
>
> I've tried several approach to prevent small hole creation in
> ira-color.c::assign_hard_reg but it does not work well.
>
> Thanks.
>
>