From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26984 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2006 17:13:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 26962 invoked by uid 48); 6 Feb 2006 17:13:08 -0000 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060206171308.26961.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/15792] missed subreg optimization In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "tony dot linthicum at amd dot com" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00531.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #7 from tony dot linthicum at amd dot com 2006-02-06 17:13 ------- So do I, at least for the original code (i.e. test and test1). I'm curious, though, if you've tried the example that I listed above (foo). I still get subregs with that one, though I honestly don't recall at the moment whether or not it makes the register allocator screw up or not (I *think* it does, but I'd have to check). Either way, though, the presence of the subregs provides the needed fodder for RA badness so I'm curious if it's present in what you're working on. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15792