From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8158 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2003 01:51:50 -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 8139 invoked by uid 61); 8 Jan 2003 01:51:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030108015150.8138.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: falk@efalk.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, falk@efalk.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/7325: Test "if ( a && b )" where a, b are 1-bit fields, could be better X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00506.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: Test "if ( a && b )" where a, b are 1-bit fields, could be better State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Tue Jan 7 17:51:49 2003 State-Changed-Why: The code generated by 3.4 is more complex with a lot of jumping around, but the issue basically still applies. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7325