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: [PATCH] PR31848

From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
To: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Richard Guenther" <rguenther at suse dot de>, "Vladimir Makarov" <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, "Richard Earnshaw" <Richard dot Earnshaw at buzzard dot freeserve dot co dot uk>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 20:06:36 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR31848
References: <200705110040.49668.steven.bosscher@gmail.com> <200705121935.12850.steven.bosscher@gmail.com>

On 5/12/07, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday 11 May 2007 00:40, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I've CC:'ed a few people because I need some help.  Can one of you folks
> run a SPEC benchmark with this patch, please?  I'm interested in compile
> times and in SPEC score differences.  Thanks in advance! ;-)

Richard Guenther has benchmarked this on x86_64.  The difference is in
the noise.

>       * gcse.c (gcse_main): Do jump bypassing in CPROP2.
>       * passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Move pass_jump_bypass
>       after loop2.
>
>       PR rtl-optimization/31848
>       * loop-invariant.c (move_invariant_reg): If we move an insn
>       with a REG_EQUAL note, and that insn is not always executed,
>       remove the REG_EQUAL note.

OK for the trunk?


This is ok.  If the bug is fixed without the pass re-ordering please apply
it as two different revisions.

Thanks,
Richard.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] PR31848
  - From: Steven Bosscher

References:
- [PATCH] PR31848
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [PATCH] PR31848
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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