From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17919 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2010 12:20:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 17870 invoked by uid 48); 21 Mar 2010 12:20:12 -0000 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100321122012.17869.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression 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: 2010-03/txt/msg02060.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-21 12:20 ------- Bug in WAITING for a long time, no feedback. Very small, hard-to-catch code difference. It's been noted before that the core2 scheduler description (contributed by Intel itself!) often results in worse code than the generic scheduler description. All in all, no reason to track this anymore. -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367