This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [new-ra] GCC-3.3.2/x86: some suspicious behaviour

From: Denis Zaitsev <zzz at anda dot ru>
To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, linux-gcc at vger dot kernel dot org
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 22:31:19 +0600
Subject: Re: [new-ra] GCC-3.3.2/x86: some suspicious behaviour
References: <20040708040643.E17650@natasha.ward.six> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407081644400.14966@wotan.suse.de>

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:46:33PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
> 
> > So, what does these two commands mean:
> > 
> > 
> > 	movl	%ecx, 16(%esp)
> > 	movl	%esi, 20(%esp)
> 
> It means that the compiler wasn't able to optimize them away.  They do no 
> harm.  FWIW gcc 3.4 or the new-regalloc-branch don't have this problem.

They don't harm.  But to optimize _what_?  So, what is the initial
meaning of these assignments?  And why they appear only for the double
asm statement?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [new-ra] GCC-3.3.2/x86: some suspicious behaviour
  - From: Paul Brook

References:
- [new-ra] GCC-3.3.2/x86: some suspicious behaviour
  - From: Denis Zaitsev
- Re: [new-ra] GCC-3.3.2/x86: some suspicious behaviour
  - From: Michael Matz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]