Re: [PATCH] proper dataflow block visitation order

[Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>]

Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> > > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > Bootstrapped on i686 with c/c++ and no regression.
> > > > > While this is not exactly a regression,
> > > > > I'd like to commit this to 4.3 -
> > > > The patch may be okay for 4.3 with the changes Steven suggested.
> > > > However, I'd like to see also an assembly language output comparison
> > > > for some .i files (e.g. cc1 or SPEC).
> > > >
> > > > Paolo
> > > we are in lock down mode.  i believe that only one of the release
> > > managers can approve this for 4.3.
> > It depends whether you consider it a regression.  All maintainers can
> > approve regression fixes.
> >
> > Paolo
> i tend to be more conservative here:   4 percent extra node visits is
> not significant.  there is no test case that will fail because of this
> issue, nor any code that will be generated any differently.

I see -- indeed I asked for assembly language comparison because you 
don't expect difference.  Mark in the past was more permissive for 
compile-time regressions; the current release managers might disagree.

Paolo