From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10980 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2004 04:00:54 -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 10967 invoked by uid 48); 6 Mar 2004 04:00:53 -0000 Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 04:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040306040053.10966.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "tjw at omnigroup dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040206074537.14042.tjw@omnigroup.com> References: <20040206074537.14042.tjw@omnigroup.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/14042] C++ abstraction penalty is high in simple cases X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00771.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From tjw at omnigroup dot com 2004-03-06 04:00 ------- This still doesn't produce the same code as the C version. I now get: L11: vaddfp v0,v11,v13 addi r2,r2,1 vaddfp v1,v10,v12 cmplw cr7,r2,r5 vmaddfp v8,v0,v11,v13 vmaddfp v6,v1,v10,v12 vsubfp v9,v0,v13 vsubfp v7,v1,v12 vor v11,v8,v8 vor v10,v6,v6 vor v13,v9,v9 vor v12,v7,v7 blt+ cr7,L11 note the extra useless copies at the end of the loop. If you'd like me to enter a new bug on this (since the title is now incorrect, I guess), just let me know. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|SUSPENDED |NEW http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14042