On 10 January 2018 15:59:28 CET, "Martin Liška" <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >On 01/10/2018 02:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>>> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law 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. >>>>> >>>>> jeff >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> Some time ago I've decided that I'll make patch submission of >switch clustering >>>> in next stage1. However, this patch can be applied as is in this >stage3. Would >>>> it be possible or is it too late? >>> I'll let Richi make the call here. FWIW, the DOM changes to avoid >the >>> two missed-optimization regressions you ran into are on the trunk, >so >>> that's no longer a blocking issue. >> >> If you are fine with waiting then please wait ;) > >Yep, it's not urgent.
Can you please post CSiBE numbers? Ideally throwing in gcc-3.4.6 numbers too? thanks,