This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2000-09-29T11:50:00Z.
- To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2000-09-29T11:50:00Z.
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:53:42 +0200
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at cygnus dot com
- References: <200009291223.FAA11371@sloth.cygnus.com> <20000929211534.A16558@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <jmitrdv2us.fsf@envy.cygnus.com> <20001001150902.B30286@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <jmaeco6no5.fsf@envy.cygnus.com>
>
> Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> writes:
>
> > > Now, I can fix these. I am preparing a patch to fix some of them
> > > (hopefully enough to be able to build again) now. However, not all of
> > > them would have been caught by the abort(). So I'm also going to send
> > > in a patch that improves the abort() so that it scans through all of
> > > the insn, and generates a warning instead. This way we can determine
> > > how bad the situation is.
> > Thanks. I am almost convienced myself that requiring this order is not good
> > idea, but I am really curious what your conclusion will be.
> > The speedups are tiny overall, but perhaps we can bring more once more parts
> > of compiler know about this rule.
> > Most of the gain is due to reduced amount of find_reg_note calls - originally
> > it just called it for each parallel, but now I am doing the call only for
> > parallel with multiple sets, this can be archieved even w/o this new rule.
> >
> > Please keep me updated about the process.
>
> I've looked into it further and I think it can't be done.
OK.
I will prepare fix to single_set_1 ASAP today. The mainline has been broken
for too long time now. I apologize for that - I expected this rule to be
harmless.
Honza