On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 20:28 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Meanwhile I am going to submit your second patch with an added > > comment. The patch permits gcc to generate the same quality code as > > before your first patch. > > Why? > > As Richard said before: > > "... it changes > the heuristics _without any explanation of why this is necessary_. > IMO, that's unacceptable for our shiny, new (and generally very nice) > register allocator. And I think it's unacceptable even if it happens > to fix a performance regression."
I have to agree with Richard and David here. I find it troubling that allocation order affects performance by anything other than a small amount due to heuristic noise. It might be in the end there is a valid reason on why Richard's patch has a positive benefit, but until we know why, I'd rather wait. Peter
