From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22364 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2004 20:07:02 -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 22333 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jun 2004 20:07:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040615200701.22332.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040603042727.15792.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20040603042727.15792.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/15792] missed subreg optimization X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg01898.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-06-15 20:06 ------- Indeed. In test1, we get a completely bogus sequence: movl 12(%ebp), %edx movl 8(%ebp), %eax movl %edx, %ecx orl %eax, %ecx What is the compiler thinking, moving data first into adx just to move it further into ecx the next moment? W. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed| |1 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-06-15 20:07:00 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15792