This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2000-09-29T11:50:00Z.


> 
> 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

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