https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On April 26, 2019 4:18:03 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 > >--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- >Created attachment 46253 > --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46253&action=edit >gcc9-pr90257.patch > >Untested patch that fixes PR90178 even when the reversion of reversion >of >reversion in lra-spills.c is reverted. Any reason why this heuristic is good? It looks arbitrary to solve the particular testcase? >For the trunk, we could as well replace the lra-spills.c change with >richi's >dce change or whatever else. Just it seems to be wrong to rely on >unoptimal IL >to perform proper optimizations.
