I understand, Thanks for your answer.
Looking at the standard, I was thinking the example you pointed was
undefined.
I have created a bugzilla
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56894) to track this big
performance regression.
My investigations pointed on the scev_const_prop optimiz
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Laurent Alfonsi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have identified a big performance regression between 4.6 and 4.7. (I have
> enclosed a pathological test).
>
> After investigation, it is because of the += statement applied on 2 signed
> chars.
> - It is now type-promoted
Hello,
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Laurent Alfonsi wrote:
I have identified a big performance regression between 4.6 and 4.7. (I have
enclosed a pathological test).
After investigation, it is because of the += statement applied on 2 signed
chars.
- It is now type-promoted to "int" when it is writte
Hello,
I have identified a big performance regression between 4.6 and 4.7. (I
have enclosed a pathological test).
After investigation, it is because of the += statement applied on 2
signed chars.
- It is now type-promoted to "int" when it is written "result +=
foo()".(since 4.7)
