From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15832 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2002 01:36:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15805 invoked by uid 71); 31 Mar 2002 01:36:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020331013601.15803.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: rth@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Richard Henderson Subject: Re: c/4648: gcc generates bad code at -O2 for SPEC crafty pgm on HPPA 32 HP-UX Reply-To: Richard Henderson X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg01281.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/4648; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Richard Henderson To: rth@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, reva@cup.hp.com, rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org, sje@cup.hp.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c/4648: gcc generates bad code at -O2 for SPEC crafty pgm on HPPA 32 HP-UX Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:25:45 -0800 Irritatingly, this is currently "fixed" by CPROP-INSN undoing the work performed by PRE earlier. Almost certainly by Thu Jan 10 22:35:54 CET 2002 Jan Hubicka * gcse.c (hash_scan_set): Use CONSTANT_INSN_P. (cprop_insn): Likewise. We really need to run a register coelescing pass between the two. That's not going to happen for gcc 3.1 though. In the mean time do you mind if I downgrade this to medium priority, since the test no longer fails? r~