From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8702 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2003 23:20:20 -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 8695 invoked by uid 48); 24 Dec 2003 23:20:20 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 00:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20031224232020.8694.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "kazu at cs dot umass dot edu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20031004182021.12508.gpiez@users.sourceforge.net> References: <20031004182021.12508.gpiez@users.sourceforge.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/12508] [3.4 regression] weak optimization for some constants < 2^16 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg02619.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2003-12-24 23:20 ------- Blame my patch. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg00163.html Ulrich Weigand also noticed performance regression on s390. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg01663.html I can revert my patch without breaking what I wanted to fix originally. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg01663.html I will test my follow-up patch and submit it for approval. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |kazu at cs dot umass dot edu |dot org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Keywords| |patch Summary|weak optimization for some |[3.4 regression] weak |constants < 2^16 |optimization for some | |constants < 2^16 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12508