From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5774 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2005 20:34:05 -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 5766 invoked by uid 48); 28 Aug 2005 20:34:02 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050828203402.5765.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "kevin at planetsaphire dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050828200424.23605.kevin@planetsaphire.com> References: <20050828200424.23605.kevin@planetsaphire.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/23605] memset() Optimization on x86-32 bit X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg03216.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From kevin at planetsaphire dot com 2005-08-28 20:34 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > You are compiling at -O0 so this is not a bug and we don't care that much about code generation at > -O0. So you're invalidating this bug because -O0 optimizes this and -O2 does not? I think this is clearly a bug, and so does Ian Lance Taylor per his e-mail earlier. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23605