On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "H.J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > 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. Thanks. -- H.J.
