https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #10 from Babneet Singh ---
Confirming that this fix resolves the reported regression in all OpenJ9 builds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Sep 20 12:18:26 2019
New Revision: 276000
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276000&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR88751
This patch implements a small improvement for the heurist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Sep 20 09:23:50 2019
New Revision: 275993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275993&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR88751
This patch implements a small improvement for the heurist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Sep 20 09:03:44 2019
New Revision: 275991
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275991&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR88751
This patch implements a small improvement for the heurist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Jun 6 11:35:04 2019
New Revision: 271996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR88751
This patch implements a small improvement for the heurist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #4)
> (In reply to Babneet Singh from comment #3)
> > Hi Andreas and Richard: What's the status for this issue? Which approach
> > will be used to resolve this iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Babneet Singh from comment #3)
> Hi Andreas and Richard: What's the status for this issue? Which approach
> will be used to resolve this issue?
I would like to have Vladimir comment on this fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
sbabneet at ca dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbabneet at ca dot ibm.com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
...
> Would be interesting to know the sparseness of regs / BBs for your testcase
> at the point of LRA and whether compacting regs (do we ever do that?) might
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
last_basic_block_for_fn is odd anyways, shouldn't it be n_basic_blocks_for_fn?
it would make things worse here of course (divide by a possibly lower number).
Likewise max_reg_num () sounds off in a similar
10 matches
Mail list logo
