From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16464 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 13:38:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16457 invoked by uid 48); 10 Jul 2003 13:38:22 -0000 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030710133822.16456.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030613023559.11180.dmixm@marine.febras.ru> References: <20030613023559.11180.dmixm@marine.febras.ru> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/11180] [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of struct assignment. X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg01079.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11180 ------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-10 13:38 ------- On i686-pc-linux-gnu I get identical asm for -O2 and -O3 and also for -O1 and -Os. The only difference between -O[23] and -O[1s] is: < .p2align 2,,3 .file "11180.c" .text .p2align 2,,3 .globl foo .type foo, @function foo: pushl %ebp movl %esp, %ebp movl 8(%ebp), %eax movl $1, (%eax) movl $2, 4(%eax) leave ret $4 .size foo, .-foo .section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits .ident "GCC: (GNU) 3.4 20030710 (experimental)" So -Os is optimal AFAICT (obviously it gets even smaller with -fomit-frame-pointer). Apparently this is something target specific. What target is avr-gcc? Gr. Steven