http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-20
17:23:31 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jul 20 17:23:28 2011
New Revision: 176527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176527
Log:
PR target/36467
PR target/49687
* con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-06-08 18:20:52 |2011-07-09 18:20:52
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-09
09:10:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 24723
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24723
Extendedn test case with size = 15, 16, 17, 18
--- Comment #4 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-08 18:20
---
It makes sense in one respect
We don't have fast shift by 4 bits and code defaults to loop for Os. Seems we
should be selective as MUL is indeed shorter.
Though I think gcc may be confused by our poor cost d
--- Comment #3 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-06-08 18:08
---
Generated code when structure size is 16 (test.i):
funct:
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
lds r24,head
mov r30,r24
clr r31
sbrc r30,7
com r31
ldi
--- Comment #2 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-06-08 17:58
---
Created an attachment (id=15735)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15735&action=view)
Test case with structure size == 17.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
--- Comment #1 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-06-08 17:57
---
Created an attachment (id=15734)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15734&action=view)
Test case with structure size == 16.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
