From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12656 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2010 09:51:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 12608 invoked by uid 48); 13 Jul 2010 09:51:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100713095112.12607.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug bootstrap/44921] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg01357.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from amylaar at spamcop dot net 2010-07-13 01:55 ------- Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap Quoting hjl dot tools at gmail dot com : > Maybe > > int min_regno = 0; > > is faster. Considering performance, your first patch was better - it avoids a call to rtx_cost when no optimization can be performed. OTOH with the expensive loop through all hard registers that's in the noise. Or compared to the cycles wasted on failed bootstraps or this discussion ;-) ------- Comment #8 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 09:51 ------- Created an attachment (id=21189) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21189&action=view) The test case The test case -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44921