From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9598 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2003 00:06:01 -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 9532 invoked by uid 71); 15 Mar 2003 00:06:00 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030315000600.9530.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/msg00918.txt.bz2 List-Id: 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 00:59:36 +0100 (CET) http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr= 10080 the problem is that ++i is translated 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 overly simplistic analysis does not recognize it. I am workning on fix. Zdenek