From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11948 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2013 20:47:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 11647 invoked by uid 48); 13 Mar 2013 20:45:43 -0000 From: "steven at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/45685] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] missed conditional move opportunity in loop Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:47:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: steven at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: law at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.3 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2013-03/txt/msg01060.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685 Steven Bosscher changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #24 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-13 20:45:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > I did some runtime testing on this shortly after 4.7 stage1 opened; the > net result was actually a regression. I didn't delve into why due to > time constraints. > > Without analysis as to why the patch regressed spec, I wouldn't be > comfortable suggesting it for any stage. Still looks like an interesting approach, tho'. Do you plan to have a look at this for GCC 4.9?