[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2007-02-18 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 18:50 --- > It's not PR24427 that's the motivation for this backport, but PR 28173. > In fact, it was *your* request in comment #2 of PR28173 to backport this! Well, I only requested that you comment on the proposed backp

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2007-02-18 Thread roger at eyesopen dot com
--- Comment #10 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2007-02-18 18:10 --- Hi Eric, It's not PR24427 that's the motivation for this backport, but PR 28173. In fact, it was *your* request in comment #2 of PR28173 to backport this! I'm a little disappointed you'd even question my decision/author

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2007-02-18 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 17:58 --- Roger, I'm a little puzzled by your last move: is it really necessary to backport a patch for a missed optimization, after a delay of 1 full year, to a branch which is supposed to be in stabilization mode now? IM

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2007-02-18 Thread sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 17:10 --- Subject: Bug 24427 Author: sayle Date: Sun Feb 18 17:10:19 2007 New Revision: 122100 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122100 Log: Backport from mainline. PR middle-end/24427

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2006-09-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 04:08 --- (In reply to comment #6) > Isn't this a duplicate of PR 28173 now? Besides PR 28173 is a regression. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24427

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2006-09-12 Thread bangerth at dealii dot org
--- Comment #6 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-09-13 04:02 --- Isn't this a duplicate of PR 28173 now? -- bangerth at dealii dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2006-06-26 Thread ramana dot radhakrishnan at codito dot com
--- Comment #5 from ramana dot radhakrishnan at codito dot com 2006-06-26 19:13 --- This should be reopened. A related testcase shows a regression from 3.4.6 to 4.1.1 for m68k-elf shows a regression . combine used to take care of this in 3.4.6 . A backport of the patch is ready with m

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2006-02-13 Thread roger at eyesopen dot com
--- Comment #4 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-02-14 03:07 --- This has now been fixed on mainline. -- roger at eyesopen dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2006-02-13 Thread sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-13 18:33 --- Subject: Bug 24427 Author: sayle Date: Mon Feb 13 18:33:32 2006 New Revision: 110918 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110918 Log: PR middle-end/24427 * fold-const.c (fold_binary)

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2005-10-19 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-19 10:25 --- fold-const.c:distribute_bit_expr should be extended to handle this case. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/24427] missing optimization opportunity with binary operators

2005-10-18 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-18 13:42 --- Confirmed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|