This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IRA copy heuristics
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Vladimir Makarov" <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:19:20 +0100
- Subject: Re: IRA copy heuristics
- References: <87vdxh53up.fsf@firetop.home> <48BD5DD5.2000501@redhat.com> <6dc9ffc80809030908n2b22e901ld9fb52225c40f9ff@mail.gmail.com>
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If using DF seems like the Right Thing, we could simply apply both
>>> patches, which would give a similar same allocno order to the one
>>> we have now. But it seemed better to look a bit deeper first...
>>>
>>
>> Richard, please apply the both patches. As I wrote above there is no
>> SPECFP regression anymore with the patches. They also solves some
>> testsuite regressions concerning EH.
>>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Could you please apply your use DF patch? It fixes EH regressions
> as well as 434.zeusmp in SPEC CPU 2006?
As I said yesterday, I'm reluctant to apply the first patch,
because without further analysis, there's a danger it's just
papering over a deeper problem.
It's interesting that it fixes EH regressions for you too though.
That was what the patch was originally meant to do, but I thought
I'd only seem the regressions I was fixing on MIPS, not on x86_64.
Which target did you see them on?
Richard