From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-32836-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17587 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2003 23:16:00 -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 17561 invoked by uid 71); 9 Apr 2003 23:16:00 -0000
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030409231600.17560.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Subject: Re: optimization/10362: Optimization with constant shifts and com pares fails on MIPS
Reply-To: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR optimization/10362; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
To: Berger David-MGI2063 <dberger@motorola.com>
Cc: "'bangerth@dealii.org'" <bangerth@dealii.org>,
   "'gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org'" <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "'gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org'" <gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "'nobody@gcc.gnu.org'" <nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "'gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org'" <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10362: Optimization with constant shifts and com pares fails on MIPS
Date: 10 Apr 2003 01:07:44 +0200

 Berger David-MGI2063 <dberger@motorola.com> writes:
 
 > volatile unsigned long i;
 > 
 > void test(void)
 > {
 >   i = (((i & 0xf0) >> 4) >= 14); /* This one generates incorrect code with -O2 */
 >   i = ((i & 0xf0) >= (14 << 4)); /* This is what the optimizer is trying to do */
 > }
 
 The optimization seems valid to me. Can you give an example where it
 fails?
 
 -- 
 	Falk