--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-21
16:02 ---
No the orginal problem was fixed, please open a new bug about the new problem,
I would not doubt
that the new problem is not a regression.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-12-21 08:02
---
Problems, with 4.0 avr test results (some good, some bad, some odd);
00c6 :
int main (void){
c6: c8 ef ldi r28, 0xF8 ; 248
c8: d0 e1 ldi r29, 0x10 ; 16
ca:
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-12-21 07:59
---
Problems, with 4.0 avr test results (some good, some bad, some odd);
00c6 :
int main (void){
c6: c8 ef ldi r28, 0xF8 ; 248
c8: d0 e1 ldi r29, 0x10 ; 16
ca:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-14
23:20 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] ~6x+ performance regression, constant trees
not being computed.
ericw at evcohs dot com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nope, unfortunately not as of yesterday, since reloa
--- Additional Comments From ericw at evcohs dot com 2004-12-14 14:18
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] ~6x+ performance regression, constant trees
not being computed.
On 14 Dec 2004 at 12:33, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From schlie at comcas
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-12-14 12:33
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] ~6x+ performance
regression, constant trees not being computed.
Nope, unfortunately not as of yesterday, since reload.c was tweaked last
week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Additional Comments From ericw at evcohs dot com 2004-12-14 05:03
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] ~6x+ performance regression, constant trees
not being computed.
On 14 Dec 2004 at 2:13, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-14
02:11 ---
Fixed also.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-12-14 02:13
---
Thank you all; and would like to try to verfiy on 4.0 as well
once we can figure out now to get the avr target to reliably build.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-14
01:47 ---
Subject: Bug 18424
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-14 01:47:35
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-11
01:49 ---
Subject: Bug 18424
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-11 01:49:06
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog dojump.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-12-09 15:52
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] ~6x+ performance
regression, constant trees not being computed.
Sorry, lost the fact that only a single bit needs to remain significant in
the resulting trasform:
(((long
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-12-09 15:23
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] ~6x+ performance
regression, constant trees not being computed.
Few thoughts:
- I believe avr's back end does know how to convert:
((char)x & ) => bit-test x
which I bel
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2004-12-09 14:59
---
The patch is a "partial" fix as there will still be a performance regression for
the code generated vs. gcc 3.3.1. The reason being that 3.3.1 generated
incorrect code for test program in this PR.
int foo(int a
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-09
12:51 ---
Proposed (partial) patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg00655.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
15 matches
Mail list logo
