[Bug target/48227] "rep ret" generated for -march=core2

2021-12-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/48227] "rep ret" generated for -march=core2

2017-08-09 Thread matt at godbolt dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227 --- Comment #5 from Matt Godbolt --- Seems to have been fixed in 4.9

[Bug target/48227] rep ret generated for -march=core2

2011-12-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-15 23:18:35 UTC --- /* X86_TUNE_PAD_RETURNS */ m_CORE2I7 | m_AMD_MULTIPLE | m_GENERIC, So we still do it for Core2 i7.

[Bug target/48227] rep ret generated for -march=core2

2011-04-06 Thread zuxy.meng at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227 --- Comment #3 from Zuxy zuxy.meng at gmail dot com 2011-04-06 13:42:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) A good question is does it make a difference in actual performance numbers, it might still make a positive difference. Until someone tries

[Bug target/48227] rep ret generated for -march=core2

2011-04-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|

[Bug target/48227] rep ret generated for -march=core2

2011-04-01 Thread ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227 --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2011-04-02 00:55:40 UTC --- If it doesn't make a difference in performance, we should get rid of it, so that we can save a byte of code.