This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Selective scheduling and its usage
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>,GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Alexander Monakov <amonakov at ispras dot ru>,Andrey Belevantsev <abel at ispras dot ru>,Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:10:40 +0200
- Subject: Re: Selective scheduling and its usage
- References: <47107168-05ec-25b6-d2d9-be1dfcf0811e@suse.cz> <1896976.h1cWcUzf4a@polaris> <CAFiYyc31pCe78fntZzuV5wPjXUwOTMh8r4KsfdT9UGQSjc=yAw@mail.gmail.com> <5363885.ZKUvjnb8cZ@polaris>
On March 29, 2018 5:14:42 PM GMT+02:00, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> Are you suggesting we should not care about regressions with features
>> that are not enabled by default or which are only exposed with
>> "non-standard" flags? The current scheme on which bugs get P1/P2/P4+
>> assigned is quite simple...
>
>I'm only suggesting keeping them at P3, which is not "don't care" as
>far as I
>know but just the default priority. The criterion could be a flag that
>is not
>part of any -Ox switches and not enabled on any primary+secondary
>platforms.
That's basically having primary / secondary / rest passes (or command line switches) which we would need to document as such. Let's discuss this at the Cauldron - I'm certainly not going to block the release over a selective scheduling bug...
Richard.