On 11/9/18 9:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > 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_). I agree to a degree, but it's also the case that these are clearly code quality regressions triggered by your changes. Your help in resolving them would be greatly appreciated.
Jeff
