[Bug middle-end/18424] 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs 3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.

["schlie at comcast dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net  2004-11-11 04:59 -------
Subject: Re:  3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
 3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.

> From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-11
> 04:41 -------
> Actually what you said is not true for this testcase as you have int & long
> and not int & int.

Sorry, I don't understand, it's fairly apparent to me, and apparently 3.3,
and 3.4 (once it's actually does compute (1L << 23) in an earlier
sub-expression), that:

 <16-bits-wide-variable> = (<16-bit-wide variable> & 0x01000000) = 0

???

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.




-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424