On 20 September 2017 17:00:13 CEST, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > >> >> Hello. >> >> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm >planning to do >> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests >and jump tables. >> Maybe that will make aforementioned issues even more difficult, but >we'll see. >FWIW, the DOM changes to simplify the conditionals seem to help both >cases, trigger reasonably consistently in a bootstrap and for some >subset of the triggers actually result in transformations that allow >other passes to do a better job in the common (-O2) case. So my >inclination is to polish them a bit further get them on the trunk. > >My recommendation is to ignore the two regressions for now and focus on >the cleanups you're trying to do.
Can you please post CSiBE numbers? Ideally throwing in gcc-3.4.6 numbers too? Just curious since I stumbled across suboptimal handling of switch statements some time ago: gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg01648.html thanks,
