https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322 > > --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- So, is > this fix acceptable to the reporter? The explanation in the combiner is > that in the first testcase you have multiple uses of the load of > 0x100000000L constant and therefore it is not attempted to be combined > with the second use (division), changing that is undesirable I think, > combine is already expensive as is. True, though eventually changing this just for constants (thus (const ...) and CONST_INT and ...) might be worth the additional overhead. I can imagine targets that don't support (large) immediates being pessimized very much otherwise.