Thanks. I will change
> + if (a != operand_a
> + && (LRA_SPLIT_FREQ_RATIO * freq >= a->freq))
to
> + if (a != operand_a
> + && (!ira_use_lra_p || LRA_SPLIT_FREQ_RATIO * freq >= a->freq))
Regards,
Wei.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Wei Mi wrote:
>> Index: ira-lives.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- ira-lives.c (revision 209253)
>> +++ ira-lives.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1025,7 +1025,11 @@ process_single_reg_class_operands (bool
>> {
>> ira_object_t obj = ira_object_id_map[px];
>> a = OBJECT_ALLOCNO (obj);
>> - if (a != operand_a)
>> + /* If a is much hotter in some other region, don't add reg class
>> + cl into its conflict hardreg set. Let lra_split to do splitting
>> + here for operand_a. */
>> + if (a != operand_a
>> + && (LRA_SPLIT_FREQ_RATIO * freq >= a->freq))
>> {
>> /* We could increase costs of A instead of making it
>> conflicting with the hard register. But it works worse
>
> AFAICT this path is not LRA specific, so your patch may break ports
> still relying on reload.
>
> Ciao!
> Steven
