From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103411 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2019 13:15:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 98414 invoked by uid 89); 15 Feb 2019 13:15:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=seriously, H*f:sk:kWDDh38, hi-angel, Hi-Angel 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; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:42 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F6F5315FBD; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-88.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.88]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01B0E600C1; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:40 +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 x1FDFcoB011876; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:15:39 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x1FDFc2G011875; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:15:38 +0100 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Hi-Angel , Jun Ma , "Bin.Cheng" , Steve Ellcey Subject: Re: GCC missing -flto optimizations? SPEC lbm benchmark Message-ID: <20190215131537.GT2135@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <92bfe075168981ee45e525875ac6a15f5e318034.camel@marvell.com> <2FB9C3FE-1EE5-414E-8425-1B84493E16DF@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2FB9C3FE-1EE5-414E-8425-1B84493E16DF@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 02:12:27PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On February 15, 2019 1:45:10 PM GMT+01:00, Hi-Angel wrote: > >I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC? > > The implementation simply was seriously broken, bitrotten and unmaintained. Which of course doesn't mean somebody else can't submit a new implementation, as long as it would be properly maintained and would avoid the issues the old implementation had. Just it is better not to have it if it causes lots of wrong-code issues and there is nobody to fix those. Jakub