This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/950628-1.c execution, -O1
- To: rth at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/950628-1.c execution, -O1
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 01 21:53:57 EST
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
It'd be a lot less costly if we reverted parts of your Dec 30 changes,
which make quite a bit more /u slots than otherwise needed.
Some are needed, when the type is actually readonly, but I agree the changes
that add readonly explicitly probably don't gain anything given if we are
forced to not reuse such slots.
However, I still come back to the issue of whether it's worth imposing the
restriction of only one store.