This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Measuring gcc optimizations: are they well balanced?

To: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
Subject: Re: Measuring gcc optimizations: are they well balanced?
From: Andi Kleen <ak at muc dot de>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:36:15 +0100
Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, Andi Kleen <ak at muc dot de>,gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <m3zoufgter.fsf@fred.muc.de> <20000109145709.A23937@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <m3zoufgter.fsf@fred.muc.de> <20000110140215.E29167@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <4.2.2.20000110142918.048af140@mail.lauterbach.com>

On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:53:09PM +0100, Franz Sirl wrote:
> 
> This seems to be a miscompilation on x86 only (?), I tried it with current 
> gcc-2_95-branch on PPC and the produced code looks and works fine. Andi 
> tried the current 2.95-branch on x86 and could still reproduce the bug.

I just looked at it again, and gcc 2.95 current seems to generate
correct code now. Maybe I just looked at the wrong assembler file.
I'm sorry for the confusion. Jan, no need to do anything.

-Andi

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Measuring gcc optimizations: are they well balanced?
  - From: Franz Sirl

References:
- Re: Measuring gcc optimizations: are they well balanced?
  - From: Andi Kleen
- Re: Measuring gcc optimizations: are they well balanced?
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Measuring gcc optimizations: are they well balanced?
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Measuring gcc optimizations: are they well balanced?
  - From: Franz Sirl

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]