--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-28 09:44 ---
won't fix for 3.4.6
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18418
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.4 |3.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18418
--- Additional Comments From ayqazi at yahoo dot co dot uk 2005-02-10
17:23 ---
Once GCC 4.0 is out, I'll experiment with it and submit test cases etc. for it.
No use trying to fix an older release's optimisations IMHO.
Thanks anyway.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-02-09 19:24
---
There's also other stuff lurking in assembler files, such as a lot of
notes for labels. These aren't code, and I've seen cases where newer
compilers output more labels than older ones for some reason.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-10
14:07 ---
First this is invalid code as explained in PR 18415.
Second this works fine on the mainline as get close to optimial code.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-10
18:52 ---
Notice that I would prefer to see a runtime benchmark before confirming this
bug. A 20% increase in code size could probably be caused by better inlining --
it does not automatically means that the code is
