From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23168 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2007 23:36:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 23096 invoked by uid 48); 23 Jan 2007 23:36:16 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070123233616.23095.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/30517] Inefficient address calculation on i386 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "astrange at ithinksw dot com" 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: 2007-01/txt/msg02023.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2007-01-23 23:36 ------- > If they are the same size (and there is no speed impact), there is actually no > point to expect that they should compile to the same thing. Of course; I meant that they're the same size at the moment. The optimal version of the first is smaller, though. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30517