From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66296 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2017 17:36:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 66175 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2017 17:36:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:36:04 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10A4E61D37; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:36:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 10A4E61D37 Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jakub@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 10A4E61D37 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-143.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.143]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E3C68ED2A; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v5RHZwqB029726; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:35:59 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v5RHZtxK029725; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:35:55 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:36:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Richard Biener , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com, wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: Backports to 6 (and 7, and 5) Message-ID: <20170627173555.GV2123@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <1498516276-16423-1-git-send-email-segher@kernel.crashing.org> <20170627160237.GB16550@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170627160237.GB16550@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg02085.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:02:37AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:18:07AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01853.html > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01923.html > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02048.html > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02606.html > > > bb-reorder: Improve compgotos pass (PR71785) > > > > It's not clear this fixes a regression and as it is > > a missed-optimization I'd not backport it at this point in time > > (I understand it's in GCC 7 already). > > It's a regression from 3.x, and a pretty severe one, but we can live > with it for a bit longer, it's a bit invasive for a backport. It is just a missed-optimizations, not wrong-code, and the regression is pretty old, so I think it doesn't hurt it if it stays fixed only in 7+. Jakub