[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 --- Comment #20 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-18 12:22:58 UTC --- See also http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/avr-gcc-list/2008-12/msg9.html

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 --- Comment #18 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-21 17:30:57 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Tue Jun 21 17:30:54 2011 New Revision: 175269 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175269 Log: PR target/33049 *

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 --- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-20 10:50:27 UTC --- *** Bug 49446 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |gjl at gcc dot

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 HotHead gcc at emailgo dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gcc at emailgo dot de ---

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gjl at gcc dot

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 Wouter van Gulik wvangulik at xs4all dot nl changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|| ---

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 --- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-18 08:06:53 UTC --- Created attachment 24277 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24277 Proposed patch Patch that is less fuzzy in its attributes.

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 --- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-17 18:57:39 UTC --- Created attachment 24264 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24264 Proposed patch. Proposed Patch (also compatible with older versions of

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 --- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-17 19:00:05 UTC --- Created attachment 24265 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24265 Assembler output from 4.7.0 (r173832) with patch applied. Assembler output

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

--- Comment #8 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-14 06:23 --- Created an attachment (id=21787) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21787action=view) Test case assembler output for 4.5.0. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

--- Comment #9 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-14 06:25 --- Lot better code size in gcc-4.5.0 and above [head]. See the attachment in comment #8. -- abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

--- Comment #4 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl 2007-08-24 18:52 --- Created an attachment (id=14105) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14105action=view) Assembler output of testcase using 4.1.2 This is the requested assembler output that Eric asked for --

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:25 --- Created an attachment (id=14106) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14106action=view) Correct assembler output of test case for 4.1.2. -- eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:30 --- Created an attachment (id=14107) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14107action=view) Test case assembler output for 4.2.1. Not really any better than 4.1.2. --

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:35 --- Created an attachment (id=14108) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14108action=view) Test case assembler output for 4.3.0 20070817 snapshot. Again, only marginally better. --

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

-- eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1

[Bug target/33049] [avr] bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 16:57 --- Wouter, please attach the assembly output that you are getting for your test.c file using 4.1.2. That way we can compare it to other compiler versions. Thanks, Eric --

[Bug target/33049] AVR: bit extraction non optimal, inversing logic solves problem

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-11 17:58 --- It might be interesting if you tried 4.2.1. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049