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] |
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:It is ok for me. Please, submit the first patch.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:I understand. That is why I only asked for your use DF patch.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> wrote:As I said yesterday, I'm reluctant to apply the first patch,
Hi Richard,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.
Could you please apply your use DF patch? It fixes EH regressions
as well as 434.zeusmp in SPEC CPU 2006?
because without further analysis, there's a danger it's just
papering over a deeper problem.
Doh! Sorry about that. I didn't read closely enough.
I'm happy to apply the DF patch in isolation if that's OK with Vlad.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |