--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-19 05:19 ---
The testcase has been waiting on for almost 6 months now so closing as invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 15:13 ---
Any news on the testcase?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-09-29 23:16 ---
> Nope but we cannot do it without a testcase.
I will send you some fake code as testcase withing 1-2 days.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24132
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
23:06 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > Maybe it is better to just speed up GCC instead :).
> hopefully not by reducing optimization :-)
Nope but we cannot do it without a testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Additional Comments From yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-09-29 23:04 ---
> Maybe it is better to just speed up GCC instead :).
hopefully not by reducing optimization :-)
> the processor indicated is not really useful as it would jump a lot.
jumping indicator is better than no indicator be
--- Additional Comments From yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-09-29 23:00 ---
actually there are more potentially relavant options:
-funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -funswitch-loops -fno-guess-branch-probability
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24132
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
22:58 ---
Maybe it is better to just speed up GCC instead :).
the processor indicated is not really useful as it would jump a lot.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
