On 14-01-14 20:36, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>> Unfortunately I haven't been able to find time to work further on the
>>> >>LRA part.
>>> >>So if you're still willing to pick up that part, that would be great.
>> >
>> >Vladimir,
>> >
>> >I gave this a try. The attached patch works for the included test-case
>> >for x86_64.
>> >
>> >I've bootstrapped and reg-tested the patch (in combination with the
>> >other patches from the series) on x86_64.
>> >
>> >OK for stage1?
>> >
> Yes, it is ok for stage1.  Thanks for not forgetting LRA and sorry for
> the delay with the answer (it is not a high priority patch for me right
> now).
>
> I believe, this patch helps to improve code also because of better
> spilling into SSE regs.  Spilling into SSE regs instead of memory has a
> rare probability right now as all SSE regs are call clobbered.
>

Vladimir,

After committing the original patch, Martin Liška told me on IRC that the patch 
broke the build with --enable-checking=release.

The bit in lra_assign used the call_p field unconditionally, while the 
definition of the call_p field is guarded with #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING.

I've reverted the original patch, and bootstrapped and reg-tested this version 
of the patch, which has a simplified bit for lra_assign.

The only functional difference between the patches is that we no longer add 
printing a debug message in lra_assign. Committed (since the difference between 
the approved and new patch is trivial).

Thanks,
- Tom