[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2021-08-29 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24929 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0 Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2006-09-20 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-20 22:19 --- *** Bug 28405 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2009-06-04 Thread aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-04 18:18 --- (In reply to comment #5) > movzbl 18(%esp), %eax > > could be used in this particular case. 4.3.3 onward seem to do that. Fixed? $ for i in 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5.orig-HEAD;do printf "### %s\n" $(gcc-$i -dumpvers

[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2006-06-26 Thread ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #4 from ian at airs dot com 2006-06-27 06:05 --- With my current version of the lower-subreg patch, I get this with -O2 -momit-leaf-frame-pointer: f: movl16(%esp), %eax movl4(%esp), %ecx movl8(%esp), %edx shrl$16, %eax

[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2006-06-27 Thread uros at kss-loka dot si
--- Comment #5 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-06-27 10:12 --- (In reply to comment #4) > which may be optimal. movzbl 18(%esp), %eax could be used in this particular case. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24929

[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2006-02-02 Thread ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2006-02-02 18:14 --- With an updated version of RTH's subreg lowering pass, I get this instruction sequence: f: movl16(%esp), %eax movl4(%esp), %edx movl8(%esp), %ecx shrl$16, %eax andl$2

[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2006-02-02 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-02 18:16 --- Confirmed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCON

[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2005-11-17 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
--- Comment #1 from tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-11-18 02:35 --- Created an attachment (id=10273) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10273&action=view) shift/mask long long testcase Here is a rough instruction-count comparison for f() compiled at -O2, march=pentiumpro betw