From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13984 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2003 18:23:04 -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 13972 invoked by uid 48); 30 Sep 2003 18:23:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030930182304.13969.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "aph 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/msg02383.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 aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-30 18:23 ------- Thanks for the analysis. Yes, this makes sense. But it is a nasty pessimization, and we need to get it fixed somehow. I'm interested because it hits method dispatch badly.