Optimizing 32 bits integer manipulation on 8 bit AVR target

[Sylvain Leroux <sylvain@chicoree.fr>]

Hi,

It seems to me that avr-gcc/avr-g++ is producing sub-optimal code for 
the 'f' function in the following source code:

---------8<-----------------------------------
#include <avr/io.h>

void f(uint32_t i) {
     i |= ((uint32_t)(0xFF) << 16);

     /* DDRA is an 8 bit register */
     DDRA = (uint32_t)(i);
     DDRA = (uint32_t)(i>>8);
     DDRA = (uint32_t)(i>>16);
     DDRA = (uint32_t)(i>>24);
}

int main() {
     volatile uint32_t n = 0x01020304;

     f(n);
}
---------8<-----------------------------------
Having compiled with the following options:
avr-gcc c.c -mmcu=attiny2313
             -Os -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections
             -g -Wl,--gc-sections -Wl,--print-gc-sections
             -fipa-cp -fcprop-registers -fweb

... here is the relevant fragment as displayed by avr-objdump. I marked 
with a star (*) all the instruction that appears to be useless:
---------8<-----------------------------------
void f(uint32_t i) {
     i |= ((uint32_t)(0xFF) << 16);
   34:   8f 6f           ori     r24, 0xFF       ; 255

     DDRA = (uint32_t)(i);
   36:   6a bb           out     0x1a, r22       ; 26
     DDRA = (uint32_t)(i>>8);
   38:   27 2f           mov     r18, r23
* 3a:   38 2f           mov     r19, r24
* 3c:   49 2f           mov     r20, r25
* 3e:   55 27           eor     r21, r21
   40:   2a bb           out     0x1a, r18       ; 26
     DDRA = (uint32_t)(i>>16);
   42:   9c 01           movw    r18, r24
* 44:   44 27           eor     r20, r20
* 46:   55 27           eor     r21, r21
   48:   2a bb           out     0x1a, r18       ; 26
     DDRA = (uint32_t)(i>>24);
   4a:   69 2f           mov     r22, r25
* 4c:   77 27           eor     r23, r23
* 4e:   88 27           eor     r24, r24
* 50:   99 27           eor     r25, r25
   52:   6a bb           out     0x1a, r22       ; 26
}
   54:   08 95           ret
---------8<-----------------------------------

Both gcc and g++ produce the same code. And I get the same results both 
with 4.3.5 and 4.7.1

Here is my question:
Is there any option(s) that will help gcc to not produce those extra 
instructions in such case?


Regards,
- Sylvain



-- 
-- Sylvain Leroux
-- sylvain@chicoree.fr
-- http://www.chicoree.fr