------- Comment #4 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-08 18:20
-------
It makes sense in one respect
We don't have fast shift by 4 bits and code defaults to loop for Os. Seems we
should be selective as MUL is indeed shorter.
Though I think gcc may be confused by our poor cost data and perhaps was alsp
mislead into using shift instead of MUL.
--
hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-06-08 18:20:52
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
