[Bug target/43052] [4.7 Regression] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's, no longer expanded inline

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug target/43052] [4.7 Regression] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's, no longer expanded inline

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 Fabio changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fabio.ped at libero dot it --- Comment #19 from F

[Bug target/43052] [4.7 Regression] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's, no longer expanded inline

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target|i486-linux-gnu |x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-* C

[Bug target/43052] [4.7 Regression] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's, no longer expanded inline

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2011-08-24 14:20:29 UTC --- Hmm, I guess ideally the middle-end should know how to inline the simple loop (for both strlen and memcmp) and do so when object size is known to be small (probably by target specific v

[Bug target/43052] [4.7 Regression] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's, no longer expanded inline

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-24 14:36:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > Hmm, > I guess ideally the middle-end should know how to inline the simple loop (for > both strlen and memcmp) and do so when object size is known to be