https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 29 07:20:09 2017
New Revision: 253279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82339
* config/i386/i386.md (*movdi_internal pee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
--- Comment #5 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I always wondered if it is more efficient to have constant pools per function
> in .text so we can do %rip relative loads with short displacement?
There's no rel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
--- Comment #4 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> At least on i7-5960X in the following testcase:
>
> baz is fastest as well as shortest.
> So I think we should consider using movl $cst, %edx; shlq $shift, %rdx
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42243
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42243&action=edit
gcc8-pr82339.patch
Patch for -Os where movl $cst, %eXX; shlq $shift, %rXX is 1 byte shorter than
movabsq $(cst
