--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-16 16:15
---
OK, given that we now have a fine memcpy code generation and nobody seems to
have an example, I'm closing this. Please reopen if you think I'm wrong.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wh
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 14:15
---
Is this still a bug, with the new patches for optimizing calls to memcpy?
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-25 20:34 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15
19:48 ---
Really memcpy should only cause permissiveness at the tree level and nothing
else as the memcpy
should always be expanded to a load/store if alignedness does not matter.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-09
19:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Did you by any chance mean PR 23556? That looks more like it.
Yes, I did. Sorry for the confusion.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23770
--- Additional Comments From jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi 2005-09-09
06:44 ---
And, there's a bug in my test program. Obviously the last for loop should be
for (i = 0; i < LEN; i += 4)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23770
--- Additional Comments From jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi 2005-09-09
06:41 ---
Did you by any chance mean PR 23556? That looks more like it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23770
--- Additional Comments From jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi 2005-09-08
21:25 ---
Huh, I don't see how this relates to PR 23356. Surely you wrote the wrong
number?
Anyway, I don't think memcpy is that bad. Consider the following program:
#include
#include
#include
#define LEN 10
