From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6118 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2003 14:46:56 -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 6097 invoked by uid 61); 14 Jan 2003 14:46:55 -0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030114144655.6096.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: falk@efalk.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de Reply-To: reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de, 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/msg00873.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: Test "if ( a && b )" where a, b are 1-bit fields, could be better State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed State-Changed-By: reichelt State-Changed-When: Tue Jan 14 06:46:51 2003 State-Changed-Why: There seems to be not much room for improvement, given the reply below: > Yeah :( I had this exact same conversation with the last guy the > bug was assigned to. I wish I'd kept my notes from then. > > Let's see, we were trying to determine if the test > > (*foo & 3) == 3 > > could be optimized. At the time, I think we concluded that translating to > > (~*foo & 3) == 0 > > which was sometimes, but usually not, an improvement. > > -ed falk http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7325