From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25500 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2004 13:19:30 -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 25484 invoked by uid 48); 24 Sep 2004 13:19:28 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040924131928.25483.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040924070254.17647.uros@kss-loka.si> References: <20040924070254.17647.uros@kss-loka.si> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/17647] [4.0 regression] Missing i386 addressing modes X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg02934.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-24 13:19 ------- I think the simple one is fasster but I could be wrong (the reasons why I say that is because the mutliply by 8 is not needed every time). -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|target |tree-optimization Keywords| |missed-optimization Summary|[4.0 regression] Missing |[4.0 regression] Missing |i386 addressing modes |i386 addressing modes Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17647