This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2000-09-29T11:50:00Z.
- To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2000-09-29T11:50:00Z.
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:09:02 +0200
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jh at suse dot cz, rth at cygnus dot com
- References: <200009291223.FAA11371@sloth.cygnus.com> <20000929211534.A16558@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <jmitrdv2us.fsf@envy.cygnus.com>
> Now, I can fix these. I am preparing a patch to fix some of them
> (hopefully enough to be able to build again) now. However, not all of
> them would have been caught by the abort(). So I'm also going to send
> in a patch that improves the abort() so that it scans through all of
> the insn, and generates a warning instead. This way we can determine
> how bad the situation is.
Thanks. I am almost convienced myself that requiring this order is not good
idea, but I am really curious what your conclusion will be.
The speedups are tiny overall, but perhaps we can bring more once more parts
of compiler know about this rule.
Most of the gain is due to reduced amount of find_reg_note calls - originally
it just called it for each parallel, but now I am doing the call only for
parallel with multiple sets, this can be archieved even w/o this new rule.
Please keep me updated about the process.
Honza
>
> --
> - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>