--- Additional Comments From dmixm at marine dot febras dot ru 2004-11-16
23:58 ---
In March, 2004 Richard Sandiford has offered a patch for elimination of
this problem. See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-03/msg01456.html This
patch modifies function do_jump (a file dojump.c). This
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-17 07:21
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1
From: dmixm at marine dot febras dot ru [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But foo_ll (shift loop with count 62!) and foo_l have remained on old -
through shift of
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 15:51
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs.
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-11
16:22 ---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
Have you actually tried compiling code identical to that you test but with
8388608L in place of (1L 23)
--- Additional Comments From ericw at evcohs dot com 2004-11-11 16:29
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs 3.3.1,
constant trees not being computed.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 17:19
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 20:28
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
02:48 ---
Here is an example for PPC:
int foo2 ( short a ){
if (a (1 23))
return 1;
else
return 2 ;
}
but it is not a regression on PPC with the above example
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
02:49 ---
I amost think the size of long changed for 3.4.0 for avr to 32bits.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
02:52 ---
or the default for -mint8 changed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
: [Bug middle-end/18424] 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs 3.3.1,
constant trees not being computed.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
02:49 ---
I amost think the size of long changed for 3.4.0 for avr to 32bits.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
03:17 ---
When I did 1 24 I got a warning (at least on the mainline on a cross to avr)
about 24 being greater
than the size of int so it was going to be 0. Again in real terms there is
something on here but I
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 03:55
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I did 1 24 I got a warning (at least on the mainline
: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:55:42 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug middle-end/18424] 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I did 1 24 I got a warning (at least on the mainline
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
04:41 ---
Actually what you said is not true for this testcase as you have int long and
not int int.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 04:59
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
05:04 ---
int_val long_val == (long)(int_val) long_val by what I had quoted in the
other bug which you were
talking about this.
Also, that simplification comes from combine and knowning that ((int_val
17 matches
Mail list logo
