--- Comment #10 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 14:15
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> D.1563 = -&a;
> MEM[base: (int *) D.1563 + &c, index: D.1562] = MEM[base: D.1562];
>
> WTFFF
ivopts are having fun :-) On the other hand, this is (one of several possible)
chea
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 14:11 ---
Oh, didn't I fix this? See PR26726.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 14:08 ---
D.1563 = -&a;
MEM[base: (int *) D.1563 + &c, index: D.1562] = MEM[base: D.1562];
WTFFF
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 14:02 ---
Oh, but those do not happen on x86_64. So this is a target issue really.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 13:47 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> On x86_64 4.2 decides to unroll 9 times while on 4.1 it unrolls 8 times. This
> is
> a code-size regression, but other than that? The 4.2 version runs slightly
> faster than the 4.1 versi
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 11:34 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> On x86_64 4.2 decides to unroll 9 times while on 4.1 it unrolls 8 times. This
> is
> a code-size regression, but other than that? The 4.2 version runs slightly
> faster than the 4.1 versi
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 11:08 ---
On x86_64 4.2 decides to unroll 9 times while on 4.1 it unrolls 8 times. This
is
a code-size regression, but other than that? The 4.2 version runs slightly
faster than the 4.1 version, though the difference may be
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 02:59 ---
This is a generic regression, x86 has the same problem with the code. Even
doing -Ddouble=int, we have the same problem.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
