On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello. >>> >>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning >>> to do >>> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests and jump >>> tables. >>> Maybe that will make aforementioned issues even more difficult, but we'll >>> see. >> FWIW, the DOM changes to simplify the conditionals seem to help both >> cases, trigger reasonably consistently in a bootstrap and for some >> subset of the triggers actually result in transformations that allow >> other passes to do a better job in the common (-O2) case. So my >> inclination is to polish them a bit further get them on the trunk. >> >> My recommendation is to ignore the two regressions for now and focus on >> the cleanups you're trying to do. >> >> jeff >> > > Hello. > > Some time ago I've decided that I'll make patch submission of switch > clustering > in next stage1. However, this patch can be applied as is in this stage3. Would > it be possible or is it too late? I'll let Richi make the call here. FWIW, the DOM changes to avoid the two missed-optimization regressions you ran into are on the trunk, so that's no longer a blocking issue.
jeff
