This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: Conflicting IRA patches


On 07/07/10 14:35, Bernd Schmidt wrote:

Yes. As long as we have something for which we can compute
{max,min}_nregs, it should be OK - if these numbers are both 2, then
allocate two objects.
OK. I'll put these concerns aside and trust we'll get the details sorted out.

I was more worried about coalesce_allocnos, but it seems Vlad's patches
even remove some of the headaches I've had with that. I'm not sure yet
how to deal with the new left_conflicts_size mechanism.
I hadn't gotten this far -- I was just starting to look at the patches and saw that there were likely significant conflicts that we were going to need to work through and figured we needed to open a discussion.

Some of the speedup patches maybe could have gone into trunk directly
instead of a branch; that would have eliminated some sources of divergence.
Yea. I approved one which looked like it could go in independently right now. I looked at the others and they probably could go in with some relatively minor massaging.

My temptation is to place priority on the double-word stuff & speedups to reduce the amount of divergence we're dealing with, then sort through the issues the removal of cover classes introduces.

Comments?

jeff



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]