[Bug target/10242] [ARM] subsequent use of plus and minus operators could be improved

2009-06-03 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-03 23:31 --- Subject: Bug 10242 Author: rearnsha Date: Wed Jun 3 23:31:12 2009 New Revision: 148156 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148156 Log: PR target/10242 * arm.md (arm_addsi3):

[Bug target/10242] [ARM] subsequent use of plus and minus operators could be improved

2009-06-03 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-03 23:34 --- fixed -- rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/10242] [ARM] subsequent use of plus and minus operators could be improved

2009-05-03 Thread mikpe at it dot uu dot se
--- Comment #7 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-05-03 19:53 --- (In reply to comment #6) Created an attachment (id=17475) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17475action=view) [edit] Proposed fix -- will commit after trunk reopens Ping, trunk is open now, no? I've

[Bug target/10242] [ARM] subsequent use of plus and minus operators could be improved

2009-03-17 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-17 11:02 --- Created an attachment (id=17475) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17475action=view) Proposed fix -- will commit after trunk reopens -- rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug target/10242] [ARM] subsequent use of plus and minus operators could be improved

2009-03-16 Thread ramana dot r at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from ramana dot r at gmail dot com 2009-03-17 00:05 --- Still present with 4.4 mainline as on 20090312 revision. It looks like some sort of relic left behind with the calculations of the soft frame pointer. Maybe a peephole will help. -- ramana dot r at gmail dot com

[Bug target/10242] [ARM] subsequent use of plus and minus operators could be improved

2009-03-16 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-17 00:15 --- This is a case where early splitting (before register allocation) of a constant in a plus expression leads to poor code. We should try disabling the split of a plus when combined with the internal frame pointer.