https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Roman Zhuykov <zhroma at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Roman Zhuykov <zhroma at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
First, I want here to mention that Richard have recently discussed partitioning
in mailing list with Segher, starting from
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00666.html
> I'll run some cross-testing to check how it works for now.
Second, those tests have finished and there is nothing to say about the
results. From correctness aspect everything looks fine. But I haven't tried to
look at each example where it prevents/allows loops to be scheduled, and know
nothing about performance impact.
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4)
> Yeah, it ought to be better to do mode switching first. But I think
> the more important ones are:
>
> NEXT_PASS (pass_split_all_insns);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_lower_subreg3);
>
> Scheduling should happen on the split form of insns rather than the
> unsplit form. lower_subreg should also improve "schedulability".
Agreed, so it would be much better to fix the issue conservatively without
moving the pass.
