[Bug middle-end/18424] 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs 3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
schlie at comcast dot net
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Thu Nov 11 04:59:00 GMT 2004
------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 04:59 -------
Subject: Re: 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@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
> 04:41 -------
> Actually what you said is not true for this testcase as you have int & long
> and not int & int.
Sorry, I don't understand, it's fairly apparent to me, and apparently 3.3,
and 3.4 (once it's actually does compute (1L << 23) in an earlier
sub-expression), that:
<16-bits-wide-variable> = (<16-bit-wide variable> & 0x01000000) = 0
???
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list