This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug ipa/65478] [5 regression] crafty performance regression
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:22:00 +0000
- Subject: [Bug ipa/65478] [5 regression] crafty performance regression
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-65478-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
>
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Actually at second thought, would BIT_FIELD_REF <arg1_3(D), ...> allow us to
> avoid the actual memory store? I tought like COMPONENT_REF it takes address as
> parameter. What I am hoping is to fully optimize out union doub x; at early
> optimization time.
Yes