From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-31187-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22689 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2003 23:56:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22661 invoked by uid 71); 14 Mar 2003 23:56:00 -0000
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:56:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030314235600.22660.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: optimization/10080: Loop unroller nearly useless
Reply-To: rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00917.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR optimization/10080; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org,gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,nobody@gcc.gnu.org,gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de
Cc:  
Subject: Re: optimization/10080: Loop unroller nearly useless
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:36:04 +0100

 Hello,
 
 the problem is that ++i is tranlated into
 
 (insn 28 26 29 1 0x40135c40 (set (reg:DI 79)
         (plus:DI (reg/v:DI 72 [ i ])
             (const_int 1 [0x1]))) -1 (nil)
     (nil))
 (insn 29 28 75 1 0x40135c40 (set (reg/v:DI 72 [ i ])
         (sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 79) 0))) -1 (nil)
     (nil))
 
 but my analysis is overly simplistic and does not recognize this. I am working
 on fix.
 
 Zdenek