--- Comment #30 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-18 03:09 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
Not to be fixed in GCC-4.0.x
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18463
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18463
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-20
07:09 ---
Subject: Bug 18463
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-20 07:09:22
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-chrec.c tree-chrec.h
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-19
15:19 ---
Another patch that improves the code on i686:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg01159.html
(with -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer:)
.L4:
movl(%ebp,%edx,4), %eax
movl
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14
08:21 ---
(From update of attachment 7541)
Already in mainline
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #7541
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14
11:04 ---
Auch; that patch is actually a very bad idea. Pretending that complex
addressing modes are cheaper, when they are not, is just confusing. If there
are optimizers that indeed want to prefer complex
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14
12:22 ---
It looks like it is just following existing practice?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18463
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni
dot cz 2005-09-14 12:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] suboptimal use of fancy x86 addressing modes
It looks like it is just following existing practice?
yes, I know. The practice is just wrong, though.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
18:51 ---
This is what we get one the mainline:
.L4:
movl(%ecx), %eax
addl$4, %ecx
movl%eax, (%edi,%edx,4)
movl(%ebp,%edx,4), %eax
movl%eax, (%esi,%edx,4)
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-29
02:37 ---
This problem is bigger than just the int--fp problem of the original
bug report. It's basically the same problem, namely a poor choice of
addressing modes.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From tbptbp at gmail dot com 2005-01-29 03:15
---
Some recent discussion about related symptoms.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01667.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18463
12 matches
Mail list logo