"H.J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> If using DF seems like the Right Thing, we could simply apply both >>> patches, which would give a similar same allocno order to the one >>> we have now. But it seemed better to look a bit deeper first... >>> >> >> Richard, please apply the both patches. As I wrote above there is no >> SPECFP regression anymore with the patches. They also solves some >> testsuite regressions concerning EH. >> > > Hi Richard, > > Could you please apply your use DF patch? It fixes EH regressions > as well as 434.zeusmp in SPEC CPU 2006?
As I said yesterday, I'm reluctant to apply the first patch, because without further analysis, there's a danger it's just papering over a deeper problem. It's interesting that it fixes EH regressions for you too though. That was what the patch was originally meant to do, but I thought I'd only seem the regressions I was fixing on MIPS, not on x86_64. Which target did you see them on? Richard
