--- Comment #6 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2007-03-26 18:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken
> > I would agree, if we had RA capable of that (which I am not quite sure
> > whether we do or not, although this seems simple enoug
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 18:09 ---
> I would agree, if we had RA capable of that (which I am not quite sure
> whether we do or not, although this seems simple enough), or better,
> RA doing better job under high register pressure.
Then how do you exp
--- Comment #4 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2007-03-26 18:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken
> > I guess the cost of loading zero is cheaper then?
>
> Cheaper than loading 0xDEADBEEF but not cheap enough not to pull out of th
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 16:51 ---
> I guess the cost of loading zero is cheaper then?
Cheaper than loading 0xDEADBEEF but not cheap enough not to pull out of the
loop. All the "easy" (one instruction) constants are not pulled out.
Really I think r
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 10:14 ---
I guess the cost of loading zero is cheaper then?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 06:48 ---
I get:
Set in insn 47 is invariant (0), cost 4, depends on
Where insn 47 is the load constant:
(insn 47 46 48 3 (set (reg:SI 156)
(const_int 0 [0x0])) 328 {*movsi_internal1} (nil)
(nil))
If I change the
