------- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02 08:21 ------- Yeah. But if I also back out http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/global.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.130&r2=1.131 we are back to what is seen on HEAD now. The state between that 2005-08-22 checkin and 2005-09-01 checkin was wrong, caused too many registers to be unnecessarily forced into memory and as such drastically changed what subsequent optimizations did. So, unless these failures have been a regression before 2005-08-22, please don't treat them as such.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23393
