From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4580 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2003 22:51:10 -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 4567 invoked by uid 48); 29 Sep 2003 22:51:10 -0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030929225110.4566.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030926105501.12419.aph@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20030926105501.12419.aph@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/12419] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Performace regression: poor optimization of const memory X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg02299.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=12419 ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-29 22:51 ------- The reason why you get different results between using gcc and cc1 now is because the way the default target (i686 vs. i386) is handled now.