From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10370 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2003 02:38:54 -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 10360 invoked by uid 48); 16 Oct 2003 02:38:53 -0000 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20031016023853.10358.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20021002075601.8126.o.lauffenburger@topsolid.com> References: <20021002075601.8126.o.lauffenburger@topsolid.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/8126] [3.3/3.4 regression] Floating point computation far slower in 3.2 than in 2.95 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg01131.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=8126 mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|3.3.2 |3.4 ------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-16 02:38 ------- Postponed until GCC 3.4; this doesn't sound like it's going to have an easy fix.