From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22460 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2003 19:22:41 -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 22260 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2003 19:22:29 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20031028192229.22259.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "tm at kloo dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20031025005408.12771.tm@kloo.net> References: <20031025005408.12771.tm@kloo.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/12771] Weak loop optimizer X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg02536.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=12771 ------- Additional Comments From tm at kloo dot net 2003-10-28 19:21 ------- Subject: Re: Weak loop optimizer On 28 Oct 2003, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: It's still an optimization weakness. Toshi > PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12771 > > > pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Severity|normal |enhancement > Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW > Ever Confirmed| |1 > Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-10-28 15:38:57 > date| | > Summary|Weak loop optimizer, |Weak loop optimizer > |significant performance | > |regression | > > > ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-28 15:38 ------- > Since this is a regression from 2.7.2 which was released November 26, 1995 almost 8 years ago, > we cannot really count this one as a regression as so much has changed since then. > > > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. >