From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25926 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2010 10:03:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 23385 invoked by uid 48); 5 Apr 2010 10:03:09 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 10:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100405100309.23384.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/43644] __uint128_t missed optimizations. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenth 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-05 10:03 ------- Confirmed. There may be (a) dup(s) for this bug. The issue seems to be that the ra doesn't pessimize the use of callee-saved regs. Does it? In example foo1 cprop-hardreg and dce get rid of the %rbx use, but that's already after pro-/epilogue. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vmakarov at redhat dot com Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Keywords| |missed-optimization, ra Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-05 10:03:09 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43644