--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 23:21 ---
Subject: Bug 23303
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Nov 2 23:21:22 2005
New Revision: 106406
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=106406
Log:
PR target/23303
* i386.md: Add peep2 for
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 23:21 ---
Fixed in mainline now.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 14:57 ---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00011.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2005-11-01
15:15 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Hmm,
I am still not sure if it matters too much, but since there are actually
dupes of this problem, I think we can simply add peep2 fixing this
particular common case.
I
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-10-31 20:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] 4.1 generates sall + addl instead of leal
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 04:45
---
Jan, what's your analysis on this PR?
Hmm,
I am still not
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 04:45
---
Jan, what's your analysis on this PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23303
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
GCC target triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |i?86-*-*
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
11:01 ---
I'm not confident that using salq in Steven's test case is really a
pessimization. I'll consider a 32-bit target then, and this testcase
char **
VTallocbuf(char **allbuf, unsigned long savelines)
{
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-14
15:48 ---
Smaller test case:
=
typedef struct {
char **visbuf;
char **allbuf;
} TScreen;
void
VTallocbuf(TScreen *screen, unsigned long savelines)
{
