On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 17:12 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 23:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > Hmm. I suppose if you conditionalize it on flag_schedule_insns it might be > > an overall win. Care to SPEC test that change? > > I assume you mean like the change below? Yeah, I can SPEC test that. > > Peter > > > Index: ira.c > =================================================================== > --- ira.c (revision 151111) > +++ ira.c (working copy) > @@ -2510,6 +2510,8 @@ update_equiv_regs (void) > calls. */ > > if (REG_N_REFS (regno) == 2 > + && (!flag_schedule_insns > + || REG_BASIC_BLOCK (regno) < NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS) > && (rtx_equal_p (x, src) > || ! equiv_init_varies_p (src)) > && NONJUMP_INSN_P (insn)
Pat ran the patch on SPEC2000 and it was very neutral. The overall SPECFP number didn't change and the SPECINT number only improved by 0.2%, which is pretty much in the noise. I think Vlad's suggestion of moving update_equiv_regs() to its own pass before sched1 sounds interesting. If that works, it's probably better than this patch. Peter
