https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On April 26, 2019 4:37:24 PM GMT+02:00, rguenther at suse dot de <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >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? In particular we'd keep a chain of 16 forwarders unmerged with your change? >>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.
