On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 10:34 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > H.J. Lu keeps ira-branch merge more fresh than trunk. But the lag is only >> >> I won't apply any non-IRA related patches to ira-merge branch so >> that you can get a fair comparison for IRA without regressions >> introduced by other changes. >> >> > 1-3 days usually because gcc community and RA reviewers are very >> > responsive. >> > So I don't see a big difference in using ira-merge and trunk. I'd only >> > recommend to apply patch >> > >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg00427.html >> > >> > first because it is critical for performance but I don't know when it will >> > be approved. >> > >> >> I checked this patch into ira-merge branch. > > I've verifired applu and facerec against the ira-merge branch. The > numbers are just as bad as trunk. So, apparently, the last patch didn't > improve performance on those benchmarks. > > Any other ideas you'd like me to try on IRA? > >
Can you verify if your problem is related to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28690 -- H.J.
