From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18523 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2008 11:44:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 18164 invoked by uid 48); 10 Dec 2008 11:42:52 -0000 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081210114252.18161.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/32044] [4.3/4.4 regression] udivdi3 counterproductive, unwarranted use In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "steven 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00997.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #47 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-10 11:42 ------- Re. comment #37: Mark, bug 38453 has a simple test case that shows the poor optimization choice for ARM-linux. Also, there are now 4 bugs closed as duplicates of this one, so many users run into this and consider it important enough an issue to file a bug report about it. Re. comment #16: Zdenek, do you remember which revision / patch removed the cost check? And do you recall (or can you recover) some of the missed-optimization bug report numbers? I tried to find them with a Bugzilla query, but failed. With the removal of the cost check, we've gone from missed-optimization bugs to too-aggressive-optimization bugs that even require hacks/workarounds from our users. To me, it seems we have made the wrong trade-off, then. In my opinion, this *is* an optimizer bug, and, actually, a much more important bug than some of the regressions that are P2/P3 now for gcc 4.3 and gcc 4.4. -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed|2007-05-23 15:13:15 |2008-12-10 11:42:50 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32044