From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30257 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2003 05:56:01 -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 30243 invoked by uid 71); 9 Apr 2003 05:56:00 -0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 05:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030409055600.30242.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Richard Henderson Subject: Re: c/10339: [sparc] Invalid optimization: replacing strncmp by memcmp Reply-To: Richard Henderson X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/10339; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Richard Henderson To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, ubell@sleepycat.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c/10339: [sparc] Invalid optimization: replacing strncmp by memcmp Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:47:08 -0700 On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 10:43:36AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > A more reasonable objection to the > strncmp -> memcmp transformation is that a memcmp implementation > might load multiple words into registers (say a cache-line worth), > before comparing. Agreed. r~