Re: [RFC][PATCH] Stabilize a few qsort comparison functions

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 06/13/2018 05:50 AM, Franz Sirl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2018-02-07  Franz Sirl <franz.sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>
>>>
>>>      * ira-build.c (object_range_compare_func): Stabilize sort.
>>>      * tree-sra.c (compare_access_positions): Likewise.
>>>      * varasm.c (output_object_block_compare): Likewise.
>>>      * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (group_compare_offset): Likewise.
>>>      (struct iv_common_cand): New member.
>>>      (record_common_cand): Initialize new member.
>>>      (common_cand_cmp): Use new member to stabilize sort.
>>>      * tree-vrp.c (struct assert_locus): New member.
>>>      (register_new_assert_for): Initialize new member.
>>>      (compare_assert_loc): Use new member to stabilize sort.
>> This looks pretty reasonable.   I don't think you've contributed much
>> recently, do you still have write access to the repository?
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> after Alexander Monakov's gcc_qsort changes, this patch is not necessary
> anymore. I've verified that with a backport (the 2 patches r260216 and
> r260222 applied cleanly) of gcc_qsort to the gcc-8-branch. The resulting
> powerpc-eabi crosscompilers produce no more unexpected differences
> between a Linux and a Cygwin host.
OK Good.

> Tested (same like with my patch) by comparing the -fverbose-asm assembly
> output on a complete rebuild of the software here.
> So, unless someone thinks one of the changes makes sense anyway, this
> patch is obsolete.
Let's drop then.


> 
> On the repository write access, yes, I don't have one anymore. But
> before reactivating that I need to do the legal paperwork, because
> unless before when GCC was a strictly private pet project for me, it now
> is work related. I already got permission from my company for that, just
> need to find some spare time to start the legal stuff.
Understood.  Good to have you back!

jeff