"H.J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
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
