From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32541 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2006 05:26:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 32286 invoked by uid 48); 29 Nov 2006 05:26:23 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20061129052623.32285.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/29158] store merge optimization not done In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg02452.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-29 05:26 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > This hits it too. (example is PowerPC) No it does not, look at the what it gives: stb 11,11(3) stb 11,0(3) sth 0,1(3) stw 9,7(3) stw 9,3(3) Reordering the stores to be in a natural order: stb 11,0(3) sth 0,1(3) stw 9,3(3) stw 9,7(3) stb 11,11(3) we do one byte store and then half word store and then two word stores and finally one byte store, yes we could reagrange the stores to get three word stores but is that really useful in this case, almost no but because of the constant generation is going to hurt. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29158