This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Bug tree-optimization/35805] [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities, at ira-color.c:1806
- From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- To: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- Cc: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Park, Seongbae" <seongbae dot park at gmail dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kenneth dot Zadeck at NaturalBridge dot com
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:37:37 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Bug tree-optimization/35805] [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities, at ira-color.c:1806
- References: <bug-35805-14137@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> <20090102152049.24429.qmail@sourceware.org> <495E33D5.8000208@naturalbridge.com> <495E41A5.7020502@gnu.org> <495E5B03.7080100@naturalbridge.com>
> StevenB talked me out of this because he considered it wrong to have
> the client pass get conservative info. I agreed with him but I am
> willing to change my mind if you really want to push your case.
If there was preexisting discussion outside bugzilla, it's of course
okay for me, and I'll not push my opinion beyond, but I'd still like to
see some numbers. You can commit the second patch either before or
after, I don't care.
>> At this point, if your patch costs say 0.3%, and removing all traces
>> DF_LR_RUN_DCE (instead scheduling a dozen more pass_fast_rtl_dce in
>> passes.c) costs 0.5%, I'd rather see the latter, at least it's easier to
>> look for opportunities to remove some useless DCE.
I'll try to do this for 4.5.
Paolo