https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, law at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654 > > --- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> --- > I don't think it's worth the effort to try and keep that list sorted. I think > we can get what we want with a single walk over the IL just before > coalescing. > That addresses the stability issue. > > Then we will obviously want to look at whether or not there's something we're > missing in the coalescer. Maybe there's a reasonable tie-breaker that needs > to > be added or some such. But until we have stability in the coalescing phase, > it's rather pointless to spend much effort on the coalescing algorithm as the > results may easily be skewed by the instabilities. Well, the results are only skewed for equal cost candidates due to SSA name allocation instabilities. If we'd address this bug properly the important case to catch would have a higher cost.
