From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-269272-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23945 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2010 15:22:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 23935 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2010 15:22:23 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ey0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-ey0-f175.google.com) (209.85.215.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:22:18 +0000
Received: by eyf5 with SMTP id 5so202421eyf.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.28.194 with SMTP id n2mr7345968ebc.10.1280416935671; Thu, 	29 Jul 2010 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.182.135 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=1c7NCg6Hmhh3BcGZqF9QK7iRkQ8AwMHpssQXi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20100525235926.GA3326@kam.mff.cuni.cz>	<AANLkTikGZ-LQGCIlr4K1GIhILtRsTI2MNCPMP5cazPkG@mail.gmail.com>	<20100527075632.GA12991@kam.mff.cuni.cz>	<AANLkTimY4icwv57CMowcV7UtOXGU2Yqfmg5Z0nwsRSDe@mail.gmail.com>	<20100528085052.GA3423@kam.mff.cuni.cz>	<AANLkTikNxYZLO3egDnljShqbfFydKrZU70xw8aG6Mfbo@mail.gmail.com>	<20100529152243.GA18706@kam.mff.cuni.cz>	<AANLkTinXyF9GhrcZxjohiP3ypcfpqgicv4KnegvYWwYR@mail.gmail.com>	<20100529191446.GA3996@kam.mff.cuni.cz>	<AANLkTimJoc5EeFxvTo731fpE4rGYdLgbOI5l0q9GbG33@mail.gmail.com>	<20100604105451.GB5105@kam.mff.cuni.cz>	<AANLkTi=iM78LxLm=2R7QxObC0NE0ZkG3YatCnwXHaSpM@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTinnMVXcAR0eo7LpBioGoC8dT8gR7hD-gfa1vCm2@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=g2zTrKL_0A29WSn1BMn7Jb1X7UB1chVh8kvW4@mail.gmail.com>	<OFECB409E6.A28EF58F-ON8625776D.006CCF7C-8625776D.006D9C3B@us.ibm.com>	<AANLkTin0MqgK=ttCc2oprD=z2N-7beKoLvM-KhNxDwuB@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTimYFxc51ZxwiT=rWkF9Do17BGkeEkw3Jf63e=3H@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTinrNbZXtXiZYhyt0V_ijipZdPR=--KSbE4Ao5yy@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=1c7NCg6Hmhh3BcGZqF9QK7iRkQ8AwMHpssQXi@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:27:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinwPP8fTrCdFg998ua3Gb-S++9TcenJZb7fWJGy@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IVOPT improvement patch
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
Cc: Pat Haugen <pthaugen@us.ibm.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 	Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg02268.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> The attached patch should fix the problem -- it reverts a small part
> of the last patch that is needed for fixing sixtrack performance
> regression caused by wrong iv-use costs because address offset range
> is conservatively computed. I will revert the change first and
> investigate better fix (Suggestions are welcome).
>

Since "gcc -m32" works on Linux/x86-64 and goes into an infinite loop,
it sounds like a HOST_WIDE_INT issue.


-- 
H.J.