IRA copy heuristics

[Richard Sandiford]

"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
> <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If using DF seems like the Right Thing, we could simply apply both
>>>>> patches, which would give a similar same allocno order to the one
>>>>> we have now.  But it seemed better to look a bit deeper first...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard, please apply the both patches.  As I wrote above there is no
>>>> SPECFP regression anymore with the patches.  They also solves some
>>>> testsuite regressions concerning EH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Could you please apply your use DF patch? It fixes EH regressions
>>> as well as 434.zeusmp in SPEC CPU 2006?
>>
>> As I said yesterday, I'm reluctant to apply the first patch,
>> because without further analysis, there's a danger it's just
>> papering over a deeper problem.
>
> I understand.  That is why I only asked for your use DF patch.

Doh!  Sorry about that.  I didn't read closely enough.

I'm happy to apply the DF patch in isolation if that's OK with Vlad.

>> It's interesting that it fixes EH regressions for you too though.
>> That was what the patch was originally meant to do, but I thought
>> I'd only seem the regressions I was fixing on MIPS, not on x86_64.
>> Which target did you see them on?
>>
>
> Please see
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37243
>
> I saw EH regressions on Linux/ia32 and Linux/ia64.

OK, thanks.

Richard