This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/18424] 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 at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Nov 2004 05:04:35 -0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/18424] 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs 3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
- References: <20041111023501.18424.schlie@comcast.net>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11 05:04 -------
int_val & long_val == (long)(int_val) & long_val by what I had quoted in the other bug which you were
talking about this.
Also, that simplification comes from combine and knowning that ((int_val & long_val) >> (log2
long_val)) & 1 (where long_val > MAX_INT) is false (nothing else). The problem on PPC and this one is
the same. Anyways as I had said before this is not a regression.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|minor |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-11-11 05:04:34
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424