On 2013-02-22 18:21, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/22/13 07:16, Alexander Monakov wrote:
You must be referring to the PR audit trail, right? I'm sure the bug
reporter
is mistaken that the stores are coalesced. What happens is that two
of the
three stores are moved up above the first asm, but because of how the
awk
script cuts the generated code, that is not observed.
Thanks. That makes a lot more sense.
Also, if we go forward with your patch, the comment related to this
conditional needs to be fixed -- it still says "Flush pending lists
on jumps,
...", but you've removed the jump check.
Yeah, I'd say the comment is confusing both before and after the
patch.
Perhaps something like "Don't flush pending lists on speculation
checks during
selective scheduling" would be better.
Sounds good. Approved with that comment change.
Thanks. You are right, I forgot to fix the comment before submitting.
Is the patch also fine for 4.7/4.6? The problem is also present there.
Andrey
Thanks,
jeff
