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: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Nov 2004 16:22:25 -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 joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-11 16:22 -------
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
Have you actually tried compiling code identical to that you test but with
8388608L in place of (1L << 23) before making claims about what is done
with constant expressions?
Your example may suggest a regression, provided no type sizes changed for
your target between the versions compared, but you really shouldn't report
conjectures about the cause of a bug without clear evidence to
substantiate them, which in this case would involve substituting the value
of the constant expression in the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424