From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EFE23854179 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:59:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6EFE23854179 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id g16so10098707pfr.12 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OqEsMGjHY/1LYP5XtmrXulFJm7mBrGh6dCbU00rpF2Q=; b=o3JLLzFTOApE4xb3+ifGQxWEyrz7aUY6/7M7+Hgfddo132+weHUV5rPMfAs3RxAOGa NNkqu2qpVmHifuULtyzQx2ARRIRAKT/25x4HdAo9VG6x+qK1L9dMdaauy9Frda6vaQNV aeIk8PQ74YiaTljxHMajnGQA3/NhqcA/p86F9O3rATOq6QmJeueJPjPcZCpIFqohwkdQ zP+WjCMby5BAt+rQD/gRQI4RbXx5IpCMBy0V5I077GkN4rB13Ketp9EbpmJbQTpzlz9m SDcXBSGbfZc8A9/gVUmt2Cz8doqI4cMiYRJdMGtX9YIxtFaHxbiD19DJdyuxEP72m2Jn pDAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OqEsMGjHY/1LYP5XtmrXulFJm7mBrGh6dCbU00rpF2Q=; b=MjW6/aNBu6Sh6StAZlo7qANfJXZxqqFE2DqMRp/To3PzKzR2rYzcL0NSTjom+jXtl3 R+4mE8YtlPvp/TeUJinAKavTr9+3wWNH8nkI1B75fzyqT738FisPuLViwSvtj0dU2Xei EOWSTjCCsEa2+JWwEWBvZ4epzDxzRwNIii0q5UPsrWfzBTcgXyXtngnCvBexvPCYqy93 wGzbK89EQPq6cLpP/Myw6TvYuLBKHIDia3nnz4FRaKGJyfkRmh103O/1VEZ22mn0EZ8S bDT9ffMaz2aRSBvvM2P5kdTGxSnRvFIcgsI4HB5HjuZY7vzxwICo/GAa+3bw14FeUQDh 3idA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf309bT4Y2jy1Pa6iasX6s3Hv01c5CwPrOGM9L62fHM56pJ02eJM hIGBvDR3v1A9WCtoYFOcRko= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5CkU/4+S3NQ44kKEmNyF4WLnEo3UIjlSO8dt88e4HYza7UBf4oc5Q4mPEwPUzOLzAiKEWPXg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:b86:b0:56c:349f:5d4a with SMTP id g6-20020a056a000b8600b0056c349f5d4amr7126414pfj.72.1666796390225; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:681:8600:13d0::f0a? ([2601:681:8600:13d0::f0a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z16-20020aa79910000000b0056b818142a2sm3105413pff.109.2022.10.26.07.59.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54ac69d4-df60-3268-139e-1608e6551cfc@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 08:59:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1 Subject: Re: RFC - VRP1 default mode Content-Language: en-US To: Andrew MacLeod , gcc-patches Cc: "hernandez, aldy" , Richard Biener , Jakub Jelinek References: From: Jeff Law In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 10/26/22 08:24, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > Figured I would ask what you guys think of making ranger the default > for the VRP1 pass now. > > With partial equivalences and the other bits I checked in the past few > weeks I'm not aware of much that the legacy VRP pass gets that ranger > doesn't.  The only exception to that which I am aware of is the trick > played with the unreachable edges to set global ranges, but that is > done in the DOM passes now anyway... so it just happens slightly later > in the optimization cycle. There is one test case that needs > adjustment for that which was just checking for a mask in DOM2 > (gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107009.c).   At this point I have not aware of > anything that Id be concerned about, and the testsuite seems to run > cleanly. > > We could change the default now and see if any issues show up, giving > us a chance to address them. The code base has been well exercised for > a while so risk should be low.  We could also reduce code size by > stripping out unneeded code if we so desired. > > Or we could leave things as they are for one more cycle.  My > preference would be to make the switch now and let it play out. Thoughts? I'd rather switch now than wait another cycle.  We've got mass rebuilds coming  up in a few months which should give us a good indicator if there's any notable issues that need to get resolved. Jeff