https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513

--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov <amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (btw it appears that either the comment or the sense of the last tiebreaker 
> is inverted)

I have to take that back, I was confused by the unusual tmp vs. tmp2 order:

  sel_rank_for_schedule (const void *x, const void *y)
  {
    expr_t tmp = *(const expr_t *) y;
    expr_t tmp2 = *(const expr_t *) x;

... and the ordering sel_rank_for_schedule seeks to produce is "worse insns
first, better last". The rest of the previous comment still stands.

Reply via email to