Re: G++ could optimize ASM code more

2012-05-09 Thread Daniel Marschall
is 2.6.32-5-amd64 #1 SMP Mon Jan 16 16:22:28 UTC 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux . And the CPU is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3440 @ 2.53GHz. (I hope the amd64 version of Debian is the correct one, or should our admin have installed the ia64 variant since it is an Intel CPU?) Best regards Daniel Marschall

Re: G++ could optimize ASM code more

2012-05-09 Thread Daniel Marschall
of movsw (but not sure) and I think that imul in the table refers to ATT's imulq resp. Intel's imul rcx, rsi while imul r32 in the table refers to ATT's imull resp. Intel's imul ecx, esi. Am I right? Daniel Am 09.05.2012 20:30, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor: Daniel Marschall daniel-marsch

Re: G++ could optimize ASM code more

2012-05-09 Thread Daniel Marschall
Am 09.05.2012 21:48, schrieb Marc Glisse: On Wed, 9 May 2012, Daniel Marschall wrote: 1. I do not know my DisplayName/DisplayFamily (0f_2h or 0f_3h?). Ask your processor (cpuid). Or your kernel (/proc/cpuinfo on linux). /proc/cpuinfo says: processor : 0 vendor_id

Re: G++ could optimize ASM code more

2012-05-09 Thread Daniel Marschall
Am 09.05.2012 20:30, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor: Daniel Marschall daniel-marsch...@viathinksoft.de writes: I did understand that the compiler used signed multiplication instead of an unsigned one because char*char needs to be extended. Maybe I am wrong, but couldn't the compiler know

Undefined constant is crashing streams - g++ bug?

2012-04-29 Thread Daniel Marschall
: posix gcc-Version 4.4.5 (Debian 4.4.5-8) (Note: It is the latest version I can get. Since it is a production system I cannot install newer unstable versions and I do not have a Linux box at home.) Best regards Daniel Marschall