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.