Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> But as I said to HJ, I'm happy to apply the DF patch in isolation, >>> as long as we accept that the benefit of fixing a correctness >>> regression outweighs the potential performance regression. >>> >> Sure, regression is more important. Therefore even if you submit only >> one (reverse BB traverse) patch, it is ok for me. >> >> As I wrote I am going to look at the second patch. I have feeling that >> even without the second patch, there will be no performance regression. >> I think that my latest patches (some of them are not in the mainline >> yet) removed IRA instability toward allocno ordering. I just need time >> to make sure about this. > > Great! Thanks. I'll test overnight and submit tomorrow if everything > goes OK.
Bootstrapped & regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, with the following FAILs fixed: WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.eh/ia64-1.C execution test FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stoi.cc execution test FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stol.cc execution test FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stoul.cc execution test Applied as 133993. Thanks Vlad for the review, and thanks HJ for noticing that it fixed the above x86_64 regressions. Richard
