This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IRA copy heuristics
Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> writes:
> Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes:
>> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> But as I said to HJ, I'm happy to apply the DF patch in isolation,
>>> as long as we accept that the benefit of fixing a correctness
>>> regression outweighs the potential performance regression.
>>>
>> Sure, regression is more important. Therefore even if you submit only
>> one (reverse BB traverse) patch, it is ok for me.
>>
>> As I wrote I am going to look at the second patch. I have feeling that
>> even without the second patch, there will be no performance regression.
>> I think that my latest patches (some of them are not in the mainline
>> yet) removed IRA instability toward allocno ordering. I just need time
>> to make sure about this.
>
> Great! Thanks. I'll test overnight and submit tomorrow if everything
> goes OK.
Bootstrapped & regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, with the following
FAILs fixed:
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.eh/ia64-1.C execution test
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stoi.cc execution test
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stol.cc execution test
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stoul.cc execution test
Applied as 133993. Thanks Vlad for the review, and thanks HJ for
noticing that it fixed the above x86_64 regressions.
Richard