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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: PR19038 causes regression of 3.9% in SPEC int

From: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
Cc: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Mostafa Hagog <MUSTAFA at il dot ibm dot com>, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:21:01 -0700
Subject: Re: PR19038 causes regression of 3.9% in SPEC int
Organization: Red Hat, Inc
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0412240256330.24989-100000@www.eyesopen.com> <200412241426.29440.stevenb@suse.de> <1104347968.4619.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200412292040.41599.stevenb@suse.de>
Reply-to: law at redhat dot com

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 20:40 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 December 2004 20:19, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > Well, this ought to fix the poor placement of the copy instruction.
> 
> Cool.  One question, don't you need a call to mark_dfs_back_edges()
> somewhere?
They should have been marked much earlier in the tree-ssa path.

They can get slightly out-of-date which would at worst cause us to
not apply this optimization when it was appropriate or apply it
when it was not necessary -- neither of which should generate
incorrect code.

Jeff

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PR19038 causes regression of 3.9% in SPEC int
  - From: Steven Bosscher

References:
- Re: PR19039 causes regression of 3.9% in SPEC int
  - From: Roger Sayle
- Re: PR19039 causes regression of 3.9% in SPEC int
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: PR19038 causes regression of 3.9% in SPEC int
  - From: Jeffrey A Law
- Re: PR19038 causes regression of 3.9% in SPEC int
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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