On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning >>>> to do >>>> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests and >>>> jump tables. >>>> Maybe that will make aforementioned issues even more difficult, but we'll >>>> see. >>> FWIW, the DOM changes to simplify the conditionals seem to help both >>> cases, trigger reasonably consistently in a bootstrap and for some >>> subset of the triggers actually result in transformations that allow >>> other passes to do a better job in the common (-O2) case. So my >>> inclination is to polish them a bit further get them on the trunk. >>> >>> My recommendation is to ignore the two regressions for now and focus on >>> the cleanups you're trying to do. >>> >>> jeff >>> >> >> Hello. >> >> Some time ago I've decided that I'll make patch submission of switch >> clustering >> in next stage1. However, this patch can be applied as is in this stage3. >> Would >> it be possible or is it too late? > I'll let Richi make the call here. FWIW, the DOM changes to avoid the > two missed-optimization regressions you ran into are on the trunk, so > that's no longer a blocking issue.
If you are fine with waiting then please wait ;) Richard. > jeff