From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13892 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2009 14:19:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 13863 invoked by uid 48); 31 Jan 2009 14:19:25 -0000 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090131141925.13862.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/37367] [4.4 Regression] gcc-4.4 speed regression In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "bonzini at 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: 2009-01/txt/msg03442.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-31 14:19 ------- Unfortunately, I do not see any reason why the two should have different speed (which means there's no way to teach GCC the former is better). I think a WONTFIX is the only possibility. CCing a release manager. -- bonzini at gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot | |org, bonzini at gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367