------- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-12-01 15:35 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] rev 15458[78] regress 464.h264ref peak 20%
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de wrote: > ------- Comment #5 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2009-12-01 15:26 > ------- > Code generation changes are expected for two reasons - the code became less > conservative when determining conflicts with other registers, so we can > usually > rename in more cases. There are also a few cases where we have to give up on > renaming due to multiword hard register overlaps we can't track. > > Unfortunately I don't have access to spec; I'll have to think about how to > track this down. I will try to come up with a testcase for you. I suppose it might be a backend issue as regrename should mainly effect the 2nd scheduling pass, right? Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42216
