This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Always avoid lea if possible on x86
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu dot lu at intel dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:22:26 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Always avoid lea if possible on x86
- References: <20100817144925.GA26996@intel.com> <4C6AA841.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4C6AA8AE.email@example.com>
On 08/17/2010 08:20 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 05:18 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Is there any reason not to remove alternative 2 now that
>> you're not doing anything special with it?
> If I understood things correctly, the problem was that in this case we'd
> match what is now alternative 3, and generate lea.
Ah, right, I see. The patch is ok.