--- Comment #7 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-10-10 14:48 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Confirmed (as in comment #1). With -Os instead of -O2 we even produce
>
> .L3:
> movl%ebx, -4(%edx)
The -4(...) part comes from PR 24669.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 14:06 ---
Confirmed (as in comment #1). With -Os instead of -O2 we even produce
.L3:
movl%ebx, -4(%edx)
incl%eax
.L2:
addl$4, %edx
cmpl%ecx, %eax
jb .L3
(because
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 04:25 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> That means we get the same bad code there in both cases :-(
Actually that is better code than was produced before. Only the extra move is
there now. Except I don't get your results for e
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-09-13 03:32 ---
With today's 4.1.x snapshot and on x86_64, I get this at -O2:
.L4:
mov %edx, %eax
incl%edx
cmpl%edx, %ecx
movl%esi, (%rdi,%rax,4)
jne .L4
-
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27440
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-05 13:10 ---
Yes it does. Not that the outcome is optimal here...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27440
--- Comment #2 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-05-04
23:09 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> IV-OPTs just gets info from the target. Now if the target says weird
> addressing mode is the same as cheap ones, what do you think will happen?
Does IV-OPTs also take into con
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-04 23:04 ---
IV-OPTs just gets info from the target. Now if the target says weird
addressing mode is the same as cheap ones, what do you think will happen?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remo
