https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20517
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
--- Comment #7 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-09-09 17:52 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Yes, please, and assign to me (working on a simplify_comparison fix for that).
>
Opened PR45617, attached your patch with results (bootstrapped fine,
optimisation seems to work). Thank you for h
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 18:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=21744)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21744&action=view)
gcc46-pr20517.patch
Untested patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20517
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 16:19 ---
Yes, please, and assign to me (working on a simplify_comparison fix for that).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20517
--- Comment #4 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-09-07 21:50 ---
However, this optimization in RTL doesn't happen in all cases. For x86_64-linux
(with or without -m32):
- testcase.c -
_Bool foo(unsigned i)
{
return (i >> 5) > 10;
}
_Bool bar(unsigned i)
{
return
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 18:01 ---
For PowerPC, either way is implemented the same in that it uses the same two
instructions (though with different operands).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20517
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
21:05 ---
The condition around fold-const:9302 can be generalized to deal with this case.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-17
17:21 ---
Confirmed, but this is already done on the RTL level. So the assembler looks
same for what you
recomend and what is produced already.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
