On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/8/18 1:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:44:44PM +0000, Sam Tebbs wrote: > >> Does your patch fix the incorrect generation of "scvtf s1, s1"? I was > >> looking at the issue as well and don't want to do any overlapping work. > > > > I don't know. Well, there are no incorrect code issues I know of at all > > now; but you mean that it is taking an instruction more than you would > > like to see, I suppose? > Which is ultimately similar to the 3 regressions HJ has reported on x86_64.
I just wish those bug reports would mature from "oh hey this patch changed some stuff" to "oh yeah this made some existing problems (in the backend, or common code, hey let's blame RA because it's most obvious here, why not!) more obvious". All those PRs show situations where we could generate better code. None of those PRs show situations where the combine patches were at fault. Blaming others is not going to improve your code one bit. (And yes, i'll commit one further improvement patch _right now_). Segher
