From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11319 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2008 18:21:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 11202 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jun 2008 18:20:52 -0000 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080608182052.11201.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/36467] [avr] Missed optimization with pointer arithmetic and mul* In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hutchinsonandy 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00485.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #4 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-08 18:20 ------- It makes sense in one respect We don't have fast shift by 4 bits and code defaults to loop for Os. Seems we should be selective as MUL is indeed shorter. Though I think gcc may be confused by our poor cost data and perhaps was alsp mislead into using shift instead of MUL. -- hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-06-08 18:20:52 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467