From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11335 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2009 13:41:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 11268 invoked by uid 48); 6 Jun 2009 13:41:24 -0000 Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090606134124.11267.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/30354] -Os doesn't optimize a/CONST even if it saves size. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hubicka 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00332.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 13:41 ------- It seems to make sense to bump cost of idiv a bit, given the fact that there are register pressure implications. I would like to however understand what code sequences we produce that are estimated to be long but ends up being shorter in practice. Would be possible to try to give me some examples of constants where it is important to bump cost to 8? It is possible we can simply fix cost estimation in divmod expansion instead. Honza -- hubicka 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 |2009-06-06 13:41:23 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30354