------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 20:19 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > I think the issue here is more that we should look for a way to optimize this > early on. I'm guessing it's one of the ce[123] passes that cleans this up for > you on your RISCy machine? IMHO it would be better even in your case to nuke > dumb code like this in GIMPLE (enabling other optimizations, etc.).
Note I tested on powerpc-linux-gnu but it should work on most other targets; just x86 is the crazy popular target which supports constants in memory stores :). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42893
