https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Nov 23 09:17:57 2016
New Revision: 242741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242741=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/60300
* config/avr/constraints.md (Csp): Widen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #5 from Matthijs Kooijman matthijs at stdin dot nl ---
Ah, then the comments are a bit misleading, yes. Wouldn't it make sense to put
this decision outside of avr_sp_immediate_operand, in the same area where the
decision between the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #3 from Matthijs Kooijman matthijs at stdin dot nl ---
Hmm, I don't think the gcc sources support that. AFAICT, they attempt to just
find the shortest approach, without caring for speed. For example, look at
avr.c, around line 1265,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #1 from Matthijs Kooijman matthijs at stdin dot nl ---
I noticed I didn't use -O in the output I pasted, but I just confirmed that the
results are the same with -Os and -O3.
