https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16798
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With all three patches together (Peter's, mine, Jakub's), I get a code size
increase of only 0.047%, much more acceptable. Now looking what that diff
really *is* :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16798
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is the same problem as PR88233.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16798
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
--- Comment #6 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-14 03:04 ---
Still present in GCC (GNU) 4.5.0 20090513 (experimental) [trunk revision
147498].
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16798
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 02:20 ---
I should note that there are some PPC cores where most recording are
microcoded.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-02-06 14:06 ---
More precisely, combine is attempting to do instruction selection, and in the
case of this bug it cannot.
A similar ARM test case is
int f (int a, int b)
{
int s = a - b;
int t = a < b ? a : s;
x = s;
y
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 17:16 ---
All P1 enhancements not targeted towards 4.1, moving to P5.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-09
12:25 ---
The problem here is that combine only combines chains of instructions that have
no other uses of the intermediate results. In this case, the intermediate
result is stored into a global variable.
One solutio
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|2004-08-01 00:54:58 |2004-10-31 04:58:03
date|
